Lords Sitting of 3 December 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Earl of Chichester—Took the Oath.

RAIL CLOSURES: LEWES-UCKFIELD LINE
LORD TEVIOT: 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:

(1) how many times trains have been diverted via Lewes and Uckfield for any reason in the last seven years;

(2) which alternative route to Brighton will British Railways use after the closure of the Lewes-Uckfield line;

(3) how many passengers travel daily on lines from which traffic might, in an emergency, have to be diverted on to the Lewes-Uckfield line.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I regret that the British Railways Board have told the Ministry that they do not keep their records in a way which would enable me to answer the first of the noble Lord's three questions. In reply to the second question, this line is not electrified, and cannot therefore be readily used as a diversionary route for the London-Brighton electric service. The two recognised alternative routes one via Horsham and Littlehampton, and the second via Wivelsfield, Cooksbridge. and Lewes, will continue to be available. In these circumstances, the answer to the third question is, "None".
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the fact that the population is increasing rapidly, does he not think it would be best to keep an alternative route, bearing in mind that it is not electrified, regardless of the extra capital expenditure involved?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the whole change of philosophy in our attitude to the railway system is that the Government must have regard to the profitability of the rail network. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that there is a growth in population: and the line from Uckfield to Hurst Green is being retained and supported by a social subsidy. But there is no such justification for retaining the Lewes-Uckfield section.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers in his reply to the alternative Horsham-Arundel line, does he appreciate that it is a very long way from Brighton and also that the Hayward's Heath-Cooksbridge-Lewes line could be quite useless because it sometimes becomes flooded between Hayward's Heath and Three Bridges? Would he bear in mind that these two lines are not satisfactory alternatives?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I accept the fact that one of these two diversions is a very long one, but it would be used only on occasions of "acts of God". The other triangle is quite short and would not cause major inconvenience.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether consideration has been given to the fact that Uckfield has a growing population; that people would like to get to the sea, as well as to London, and that if this short line is removed this will no longer be possible? Will the Minister bear in mind that all round Uckfield the population is increasing very fast? Would it not be wise to keep this line in good order in case the pressure becomes such that in due course it will have to be reopened?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards the first point in the supplementary question, arrangements are being made for additional bus services, as the noble Baroness may remember from our previous exchange on this matter. On the question of the retention of ownership, I think this an interesting point, and perhaps the noble Baroness would consider putting down an Unstarred Question so that we might discuss the matter.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, in most cases where a railway line is closed and complaints from the public immediately arise it is a fact that when the railway line was open very few people used it?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend is helpful in reminding the House of this fact.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PROGRAMME
2.38 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the announced French cuts in their contribution to the Concorde programme will affect the timing of the first flight of the Toulouse-built prototype; when they now expect that flight to take place; and when they now expect the Concorde to receive its Public Transport Certificate of Airworthiness.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the cut announced by the French Government of 60 million francs in the Concorde budget for 1969 is essentially a rephasing of payments and is not intended to reduce or slow down the actual programme of work next year. In any case 60 million francs represents less than 10 per cent. of the French budgetary provision for 1969. First flight remains planned for January next year, and certification of airworthiness for autumn 1972.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Can he say whether there is any truth in the article in the Sunday Express last Sunday in which it was suggested that the British aircraft might now fly first on Christmas Day? Secondly, can he say in which particular areas of manufacture the French cuts will have effect? Can he say which particular parts of the aircraft are going to be affected; and how is it that a re-phasing of payments cannot affect the date of the first fight or the date of the production of the prototype, since, presumably, the suppliers are not going to supply the goods until they are paid for?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first may I say that I am grateful for the noble Lord's gratitude. The noble Lord referred to an article in the Sunday Express. I put the same question to the people concerned and I was told that it was a lot of nonsense—the article, that is. As for the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, there is no particular part of the work which is being

5
held up; it is wholly a question of re-phasing the payment. I am told that the limiting factor is not a question of finance but a question of the technical work being done.

VETERAN CAR RUN AND TRAFFIC INCONVENIENCE
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they have given to the appropriate local authorities and police in respect of considerable inconveniences caused to motorists during such events as the annual race of veteran cars from London to Brighton; whether they are aware that preference is given to the passage of those cars over those drivers who wish more speedily to reach their destinations; and whether the A.A. and R.A.C. can be advised to affix warning notices of the veteran car race on London roads converging on the main London-Brighton road.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has appointed the R.A.C. as the appropriate authority for authorising all rallies (including the Veteran Car Run) which pass through more than one police area. For all such events the arrangements are worked out by the R.A.C. in consultation with the police to ensure the minimum inconvenience to other road users. In respect of the Veteran Car Run the route for the competitors is signposted as well as alternative routes for other drivers. The route is not closed to other motorists, but the police do regulate other traffic to assist the veteran cars. While my right honourable friend recognises that not everyone is interested in rallies, veteran or otherwise, the Veteran Car Run is one event which has attracted very few complaints in recent years. For many people it is an enjoyable event.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that while I, and I am sure everyone in this House, have no desire at all to prevent the running of this very entertaining event,
6
nevertheless a great deal of inconvenience is caused to other drivers? My own experience is that a journey which normally takes a certain time took an hour more on the day that I went, causing me to arrive at my destination for a special appointment three-quarters of an hour later. That is also the experience of a number of others—parsons, doctors and businessmen—who want to reach their destinations in normal time. And will my noble friend take heed that the notices are quite inadequate for this purpose?
LORD WENTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Veteran Car Rally takes place once a year, it is watched by three-quarters of a million people and in the recent period only one complaint has been received.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the historical background of this event, which is of particulare interest to Members on this side of the House?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I am not certain that I altogether agree with my noble friend. It is the anniversary of the abolition of the gentlemen with the red flag.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this event is not, as it is inaccurately described in two places in the Question, a race? Is the noble Lord further aware that I had anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen had put down this Question because of some personal experience; and could the Minister say why the noble Lord should pick on this event, as against the multifarious number of carnivals, processions and demonstrations taking place on the public roads? Is the noble Lord aware that the R.A.C., who promote this event, as well as acting as the Government's agent erect a mass of notices giving warnings and alternative routes—the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, shakes his head—which should satisfy the noble Lord if only he went to look for them? Finally, is the Minister aware that the A.A. would not have any interest in this rally, because it is promoted by the R.A.C.?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards the penultimate point raised by the noble Lord, that is my information.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, in view of the obvious ignorance of the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, would the Minister convey to the noble

7
Lord that he can come down to Brighton with me next Saturday so that he can see for himself?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was on the rally—that is why I complained?
LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how much competitors appreciate the help of the police, and that without this help many of us would not get up the hills at all?

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will be repeating a Statement on the Whitehall Redevelopment Plan at a convenient moment after half past three o'clock. Subsequently, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will make a Statement on the Falkland Islands.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a) Administration. The administration Committee was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel, (Chairman)

M. Salisbury,

E. St. Aldwyn,

V. Simonds,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Denham,

L. Henley,

L. Strang,

B. Swanborough,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library. The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows:

V. Simonds,

L. Amulree,

L. Burden,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Chorley,

L. Reid,

B. Wootton of Abinger,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Department, The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows:

E. St. Aldwyn,

V. Goschen,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Champion,

L. Sainsbury,

L. Shepherd,

L. Strang,

B. Swanborough,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(d) House of Lords Estimates. The Sub-Committee on the Estimates was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel, (Chairman)

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee authorised the revised scales of salary under D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 14 to the Assistant Clerks of the Records with effect from the 1st January, 1968, and the 1st January, 1969.
The Committee also sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 20—Central Pay Increase;

(b) D.E.O. (68) (Pay) No. 27—Pay of the Higher Civil Service;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Committee authorised the employment of an additional Senior Personal Secretary in the Parliament Office from the 25th November to the 31st December 1968.
The Committee also sanctioned the regrading to Office Assistants of the three posts of Record Office Assistant with effect from the 1st December, 1968.
4. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised the employment of two temporary Reporters on the 19th and 20th November. 1968. for assisting in the editing and reporting of Debates.
5. DEPARTMENT OF THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN AND SERJEANT-AT-ARMS
The Committee authorised the payment of temporary assistance in the Office of the Lord Great Chamberlain and Serjeant-at-Arms.
6. ESTIMATES
The Estimate for the House of Lords for 1969–70 was laid before the Committee and approved.
7. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation Awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. William Day. B.E.M., the Principal Doorkeeper on his retirement from the 17th January, 1969;

(b) Revised Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Stanley Cole, Attendant, who retired on the 13th October, 1968;

(c) Supplementary Death Gratuity under S. 4(2) Superannuation Act 1965 to the legal personal representative of the late William John Baines. Doorkeeper, who died on the 3rd November, 1968.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES BILL
2.48 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. On July 8 my noble friend Lord Beswick, who will reply to points made in this debate, repeated a Statement about the deep sea fishing industry which had been made by my right honourable friend in another place. This Bill implements the assurances of continued support for the deep sea fishing fleet contained in the Statement and goes on to make a number of valuable provisions on matters such as the conservation and policing of fisheries.
First in importance is the new basis of subsidy to be introduced for the deep sea fleet. This will not be set out in the Bill, but without the repeals effected by Clause 1 we should be unable to change the basis of subsidy at this time. As soon as this Bill becomes law, the Fishery Ministers intend to make a new subsidy scheme, which will require an Affirmative Resolution. The scheme will take account both of fluctuations in the industry's profitability and of the need to encourage efficiency. There will be a total sum available for distribution. Its amount each year will be £2 million, adjusted upwards or downwards by reference to the operating profits of the industry in a previous period. The details of this upward or downward adjustment were in last July's announce
10
ment, and perhaps I need not repeat the somewhat complicated arithmetic. The details of the distribution will go into the scheme which, as I have said, will be coming before your Lordships. As the Minister said at the time, the new arrangements will reward those with the greatest efficiency.
What I have been saying so far refers to the deep sea fleet. So far as concerns the white fish subsidy for inshore vessels and the herring subsidy, we shall continue the arrangements for annual review of the level of expenditure. The automatic reduction in subsidy which Clause 1 repeals has been a feature of the deep sea arrangements only, but Clause 1 will incidentally ensure that the powers to assist the inshore industry continue for the same minimum period of five years to which the new assurance to the deep sea fleet relate. Clause 2 makes minor changes to ensure that our subsidy schemes will not be out of order if they treat fish products in the same way as fish, or transshipment in the same way as landing. This latter provision will particularly help inshore vessels who can sometimes sell to a foreign buyer without having to land the catch on the quay in this country at all.
I ought to remind the House that since the July announcement the Government have reimposed the 10 per cent. tariff on frozen fish fillets from EFTA countries. This is the ordinary rate of duty which we took off in stages when EFTA was formed. This, however, was a conditional concession, and we have followed the agreed procedure in reimposing the duty. We shall, of course, continue to watch the import position carefully. There will be renewed talks with exporting countries in 1969.
Most of the rest of the Bill is designed to allow us to play our part in international fisheries conventions, to which we belong. First, it will enable us to ratify and implement the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic—more commonly referred to as the Policing Convention. The Convention reflects closely the North Sea Convention of 1882, embodied in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1883. The 1883 Act is repealed and the relevant provisions are re-enacted in the present Bill with suitable modifications to meet to-day's

11
conditions. I am aware that from time to time concern is expressed about the activities of foreign fishermen within our fishing limits. As the 1883 Act formed, with the Fisheries Limits Act 1964, the basis of the régime within our limits, the Bill sets out in up-to-date terms the rules for foreign vessels within our waters. At the same time it strengthens them in a number of ways. I have no doubt that noble Lords will agree that these steps in international co-operation and the measures proposed to give adequate protection to our fishermen within our limits are important and timely. They are certainly welcome to our industry, who recognise the importance of international rules for conservation and for conduct on the fishing grounds. I hope, too, that noble Lords will welcome the measures in the earlier clauses of the Bill as assuring continued support to this important British industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for describing to us this Bill, to which I wish to say a qualified word of welcome, because the fact is that although the measures are good, so far as they go, I fear they will not be sufficient to meet the needs of this very hard-pressed industry. This seems to me to be an interim measure. The new subsidy scheme which the noble Lord has described and which will be introduced under the Bill was described to us in outline in the summer, and this, plus the imposition of the 10 per cent. import duty, will undoubtedly keep the industry alive for the time being. But I do not think that this can be regarded as a longterm solution to, in particular, the problems of the distant water fleets.
The distant water fleets, or the deep sea fishermen, as they are sometimes called, catch by far the greater part of our fish supply, and it is because the industry is, to my mind, in a pretty disturbing condition that I should like to say a word or two about why I feel this measure cannot be regarded as more than an interim measure and why the Government should be giving thought to how they can go further in order to put the industry on a more secure basis.
12
The gravity of the financial position of the distant water fleets is such that last year, 1967, over the fleet as a whole the average loss was over £18 per day per vessel. No port or section of the fleet made a profit, after allowing for depreciation. Landings of fish were up, but gross returns were down, with greatly increased quantities of fish surplus to human consumption requirements and, therefore, being sold at very low prices for conversion to fishmeal in the fishmeal factories. This year, 1968, prices have been running even lower, and I feel that the results may be correspondingly worse.
The distant water fleet is a fleet which ten years ago was making a good profit and required no help from anybody. It is, therefore, a picture of this fishing fleet, which, as I have said, provides the large part of the fish supply of this country, running rapidly downhill over the last ten years. The fleet itself is shrinking in numbers. Over the last two years it has shrunk by some 26 vessels, from a total of 189 down to 163. if I may just fill in the background, it is reckoned that if we had to become entirely dependent on imported fish for our fish supplies it would cost us as a nation an additional £40 million per annum. So it is a substantial item in the national economy.
I believe that this is a most disturbing picture. As I say, it has not come about overnight. It is nobody's fault in particular. It is due to a combination of circumstances which has adversely affected the fleet as a whole, and this fleet in particular, more especially in recent years. I can remember that in 1953, when it was my privilege to conduct through the other place the 1953 Sea Fisheries Act, the distant water fleets were robustly independent, making a good profit, fully able to build new vessels and to look after themselves. All we had to do then was to provide for the near middle water fleets and inshore fleets, which were both in trouble.
In the last fifteen years, and particularly in the last ten years, two factors have progressively undermined the economy of the distant water vessels. The first is the increasing and excessive subsidies which have been granted by foreign Governments to their fleets in order to

13
assist imports of fish into this country; and the second, the progressive exclusion of our distant water fleets from their traditional fishing grounds. This, I am sure your Lordships will remember, was started by Iceland with the establishment of a 12-mile barrier of territorial waters round their coast, and it has now been extended and has become generally the rule of the sea. The effect of this has been that the traditional fishing grounds which our fishermen have developed over the last generation or two have progressively been closed to these distant water vessels. As a result, they now have to go further and they tend to catch less, having, of course, more unproductive time when they are steaming to and from their fishing grounds. Nothing can be done about the territorial waters now—this has now become international law and we just have to accept it—but the other factor, the subsidising of imports, is, I submit, something which the Government can do something about; indeed, they are doing something about it in the imposition of a 10 per cent. import duty. This is very welcome so far as it goes, but I am going to suggest that they will have to go further.
A further progression of difficulties has also come upon the industry, first in the rapid development of the fish freezing plants. This, although it is of great advantage in many ways in conveying fish in better condition on to our table, has the disadvantage that surpluses tend to become cumulative and therefore further depress the market, not only in this country but of course in all the other fishing countries. Secondly, there is the progressive closure of the European markets to imported fish. I think I am right in saying that our market in this country is the last open market in Europe to imported fish. This of course inevitably greatly increases the pressure upon it. Thirdly—something to which I have already referred—there is the startling increase in subsidies given by foreign Governments to assist their fishing industries.
I should like to mention just two examples to give your Lordships a picture of the measure of the subsidies. Iceland is one of the principal fishing nations which export fish in this market. When this country devalued by 14 per cent. last year, in order to preserve her com
14
petitive position in our market Iceland proceeded to devalue by 25 per cent. Now, not content with that, in order further to improve her competitive position here she has devalued again, by 35 per cent. more. Norway is another example. Norway is a very great fishing nation. Government assistance to the fishing industry in Norway has increased from £6 million per annum last year to £14 million per annum this year, and the subsidy we are giving to our fleet is an average of £2 million a year with a maximum of £4 million. I mention these examples to indicate the measure of the subsidy which foreign countries are giving in order to push their imports into this market. In a way, of course, it is of benefit to the housewife in enabling her to gel cheap fish, but on the other hand it is completely ruining our own fishing industry. I think these facts put in perspective the measures which the Government are now putting before us.
In my view, the Government's very welcome measure of a 10 per cent. import tariff is going to have only a very limited effect. It will have some effect, certainly, but only a very limited effect, in the face of these massive subsidies which these important fishery nations are putting behind their industries in order to make sure that their exports continue to get into this market. These are my reasons for saying that I believe that this measure, valuable though it is, can be regarded as only an interim measure.
I should like, if I may, to suggest the kind of long-term solution which I feel we shall be driven to adopt for the fishing industry if we want it to continue to serve the nation's interests. This means protecting the home market for our own fishery industry. I believe, regrettable though this is, that this is really the only way in which we can secure an economic, profitable fishing industry here. This is indeed what all the other European countries have already done. I would say, on the other hand, that I feel it is most regrettable that we should have found ourselves step by step pushed into the position—and this has been done by all Governments—of subsidising first one section of the fishing industry and then another. Here is an industry which, above all, is an industry of enterprise and courage, where men must take great risks and exert great skill in order to

15
bring their catch safely home. The last thing we should wish to do is to make them in any way dependent on Government subsidies, with the inevitable tendency that they come back again to ask for more when they are in difficulties. This is bound to undermine the very spirit on which this really splendid industry has traditionally worked.
In the light of these considerations, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I understand is to reply, three questions which I think are germane to the issue I am putting. What steps are the Government taking to work out a long-term policy for the industry? Are the Government considering setting up another Commission similar to the Fleck Commission to take an overall look at the industry and decide what to do now? It will be nearly ten years since the Fleck Commission was originally set up. Is there to be another Commission to decide what should be done to put the industry in a strong and healthy position? Secondly, will the Government consider an import control system which will effectively limit imports—unless there is a serious shortage here, when of course imports should be allowed? Have they considered a variable import levy, for instance, starting at 10 per cent. and, if necessary, being raised if it does not seem to be sufficient to obtain the right balance?
The point I make to noble Lords on the Government Bench is this. If the other countries in Western Europe are all able to protect their markets effectively, cannot we follow suit? We shall see later this week the Customs (Import Duties) Bill which the Government are bringing before Parliament, by which the Government intend to limit imports in another field. Is it not possible to find some flexibility within the system which would enable us to do what other countries seem to do so succesfully for their own markets? Thirdly, have the Government considered following the policy of the E.E.C. for their fishing industries, which I understand is now in course of development? Are they considering this as a possible solution to give stability to the fishing industry here?
There is one further general point on the Government's general policy which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton,
16
did not mention. It is generally known, I think, that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has been brought in to discuss a merger between three of the biggest fishery companies. As the Monopolies Commission prohibited an amalgamation between two of the big companies two years ago, there must be some initial doubt about any move of this kind by the I.R.C. If it was considered to be against the interests of the economy to amalgamate two companies, it would seem, prima facie, to be even more against the general interest to amalgamate three. However, my Lords, I do not oppose this matter on principle. Indeed. I welcome an investigation into the pros and cons of such a merger. It might be financially and industrially advantageous to the fishing industry. But I would suggest that what would be objectionable would be if the Government encouraged the I.R.C. to use public money which they have available to sugar the pill of the merger; that is to say, if what was achieved was an indirect form of subsidy to the industry on a discriminatory basis, because it would help only the three firms concerned while those firms which remained outside the amalgamation would not of course have the benefit.
It is, of course, common knowledge that the industry is short of finance for rebuilding the existing fleet and that what is needed is fewer vessels of modern design. I know that there is criticism in some quarters that the industry is old-fashioned and inefficient. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in replying, will agree with me that it would not be justified to make this general criticism against the industry, either on the catching side or on the marketing side. In both sections some highly efficient work is being done. But I am not going to say that there are not some old-fashioned fisheries still operating on the catching side; nor are all sides of the fishery business entirely up to date in their marketing, in matching the needs of the day to put their product on the market in the most attractive form for the housewife.
What is the Government's view on fleet replacement? Do they want to see some new conventional trawlers built? Do they want to see some modern stern fishers with deep freezing? Do they want to see some modern factory ships with deep

17
freezing? All these are, of course, very expensive items, all with high standards of amenity and safety in order to make them attractive and safe for the crews who are operating. Do the Government really think that these measures will provide the money needed by the fishery industry to rebuild and modernise itself on this sort of scale? I suppose each factory ship costs between £1 million and £2 million, and stern fishers certainly cost about £500,000 each. I earnestly hope that the Government will give further thought to finding some means of securing the home market for our own fishing industry so that the industry then gets a fair return, both for the owners and for the fishermen, and makes enough money for rebuilding and modernisation on the lines we want. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will have something helpful to say in his reply.
As I have said, the Bill itself is unexceptionable. It is primarily an enabling Bill for the main subsidy measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, has told us, and we shall not have before us the details of the scheme until the Government lay the Order and the scheme is before the House, With regard to the design of the subsidy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, briefly referred, this is related to the added value of the operation of each vessel. That seems to be a sound basis, because it puts the right incentive on efficiency and success in operation. Where there is success in fishing there will be an additional subsidy, and if it is necessary to have a subsidy that is the best form in which to have it. I understand that the details of the scheme are now being worked out with the industry. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the industry is in agreement with those details and also broadly in agreement with the Scheme.
May I refer briefly to Clause 4? This would enable the White Fish Authority to impose a higher levy. The White Fish Authority raise a levy from the industry in order to finance their operation, and the Authority do much good work, but my impression is that the industry is so hard pressed at the moment that an increased levy now would go very badly indeed. I trust the Government and the Authority will have second thoughts about the imposition of a higher levy at the present time. The remaining clauses,
18
Nos. 5 to 14, deal with conservation and policing and are unexceptionable. They give me the opportunity of congratulating Her Majesty's Government on taking the lead in drawing up the new Convention on the conduct of fishing operations in the North Atlantic and getting the agreement, by signature, of all the 18 countries which fish the North Atlantic. I hope this will be on the record, for the benefit of all those who have worked so hard to bring this about. I have asked the Government to go much further because I believe the industry is in a dangerously weak position. However, I commend the Bill as a useful, although interim, measure, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will have something reassuring to say about the intentions of the Government for what I regard as the long-term solution for this hard-pressed industry.
3.15 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I have only one point to make, but I am sorry to say that I am making it for the fourth time. There has been a mass of legislation about sea fishing subsidies and the law is in state of chaos. This can be exemplified by my reminding your Lordships of the Scheme laid before the House on the day before we rose for the Recess—the White Fish and Herring Subsidies Scheme, said to be made
"in exercise of the powers conferred…by section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953 (as amended by section 2 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 and by section 37 of, and paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962), section 3 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 (as amended by section 37 of, and paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962), and sections 1 and 2 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962,…"
Each time I make this point the Government hold out a very promising carrot. On the last occasion I was told that a consolidating measure had actually been drafted by the Law Commission and would be introduced in this Session. I did not find it in the Queen's Speech, but I dare say consolidating measures do not find their way into the Queen's Speech. All I ask is whether this consolidating measure is really going to be introduced now, and will it help the Government to find out how to introduce it if I threaten that if it is not done I shall be making this speech for the fifth time?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder whether, in his reply, the noble Lord could say something about the distribution of fish. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has indicated that one cause among many why this industry requires help is that a proportion of the catch has to be sent to be made into fish manure, for which the industry gets a very low price. I find it strange that this should happen when, at least in my part of the country, there is a constant cry from the housewives that they cannot get fish. Yet there seems to be a surplus which is used for making fish manure. It would appear that there is something at fault in this regard.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I might first try to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am not quite certain whether he meant his promised (or threatened) fifth speech to be a carrot or a stick; but he has a point in regard to consolidation. There is a need for consolidation, and as soon as this Bill is passed I hope that we can make progress with the promised Consolidation Bill. It would have been introduced before this, but the decision of policy incorporated in the present Bill was taken in the course of last Session, and obviously it seems best to amend first and then consolidate afterwards. I am afraid this means that the interests of the fishing industry have come before those of your Lordships' House, or the laudable quest for tidiness on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but I trust that I shall have his sympathy. I hope that he will be patient just this once, and I promise him that there will be a Consolidation Bill.
I should explain that not only was it necessary to bring in the numerous minor amendments to be found in Schedule 1 and the repeals in Schedule 2 to the present Bill that make consolidation more simple, and therefore I hope more effective, but I ought also to say that at Committee stage I shall bring before your Lordships a number of Amendments to this Bill. They will be only of a minor or of a drafting nature, and should not detain us, but they should make the process of consolidation easier once we have passed this Bill.
20
Turning to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I thank him—as I find I usually do—both for the welcome he has given to this Bill and for the constructive comments he has made. I am not certain that I shall be able to answer all his questions. Some of the points I should like to look at again, but I appreciate that he has put his comments in a most constructive way. I do not quite agree with him when he over-uses, as I think, this word "interim". Certainly this is part of what we hope will be a constructive development of the industry; it is a part, it is a step, but I hope he will think that the tend to which he has fairly called our attention might now be reversed.
First, there is this incentive to efficiency which is built into the proposed scheme. As he said, although a fall in the profitability of the fleet as a whole will tend to increase the total available for distribution that total will then be shared out on the basis of a formula which will favour the most efficient units in the fleet. I agree with him that there are efficient units now, and there are some which are possibly less efficient, but so far the less efficient and the more efficient have been rewarded equally. From now on there will be an incentive for the efficient unit.
I accept what he says about the capital involved, but, as he knows, the White Fish Authority is put in funds by the Government to make grants. This does help the building of new vessels and the modernisation of existing vessels. I ought also to refer again, I think, to the calculations which will be involved in the distribution of the total. Briefly, they involve taking the earnings from fishing and subtracting all operating costs, except for labour and one other item, which I think is relevant to what he has been saying. In other words, we shall find out for each vessel its profits plus wages. The subsidy will be an instrument for encouraging investment expenditure likely to increase the added value whilst discouraging uneconomic costs. The reason for excluding labour from operating costs is obviously because we do not wish to give an incentive to lower safety standards. The other item to which I referred and which should be treated in the same way as labour costs is the cost of

21
training. We intend to provide that a progressive owner who spends money on training sea-going labour should not find that these costs reduce his added value and thus his share of the total subsidy.
Another reason why I think we can say that we hope that the trend to which the noble Lord called our attention, quite fairly, may be reversed is this possibility of a basic reorganisation of the fleet. I think that not only in the Press but in the July Statement which I repeated in this House reference was made to the study of the structure of the industry which is being made by the I.R.C. Some of the possibilities have been ventilated in the Press, but the I.R.C. have not yet completed their discussions or submitted any firm proposals, and it would be quite inappropriate, as I ant sure the noble Lord would agree, if I were to say more, except to emphasise that the Government wish to see an improvement in the structure of the industry.
I was asked about the relationship of any possible recommendations made by the I.R.C. and the attitude of the Monopolies Commission. Again, until the I.R.C. have finalised their proposals and put them before the Government it is clearly difficult for me to say what our attitude will be. The proposals will need to be considered by, among others, an inter-departmental mergers panel in the light of Government policy generally; and having regard to objections made by the Monopolies Commission in 1966 to the proposed merger of the Ross Group and Associated Fisheries I hope the noble Lord will think that this is a reasonable attitude to adopt. Let us look to see what they put forward, hearing in mind the philosophy of the Monopolies Commission and also our need and desire to see a much more efficient structure for this important industry.
The noble Lord also asked me about import control. I make no complaint at all that the noble Lord underlined the contribution which a liberal import policy has made to the problems of this industry. It was right for him—indeed I go so far as to be indiscreet and say it was probably useful of the noble Lord—to publicise that the United Kingdom is unique in this respect, certainly in Europe, in the way in which our ports
22
are open at all times to the landing of fish, whether directly from catching vessels, irrespective of nationality, or as commercial imports. The fact that we have a 10 per cent. duty now on wet fish and once again on frozen fillet; from all non-Commonwealth supplier:, certainly does not make us an illiberal country in this respect.
I am sorry that I cannot add much more to what my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton has already said in his opening Second Reading speech. There will be talks. They are part of the outcome of the recent EFTA Ministerial meeting in Vienna, when it was agreed that the representatives of countries directly concerned with imports of frozen fish fillets should meet again in February or March, 1969
"to renew their efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution to the problem".
I add this, however. When the EFTA Convention was negotiated in 1959, a 10-year period was set for the arrangements on frozen fish fillets. That is the arrangement under which the duty was first taken off and has now been reimposed. The negotiators left the régime after the first ten years to their successors, so obviously we are going to have this very much in mind when we have these talks in February or March. The House, I think, will not expect me to say anything about what I consider will be the outcome of these future talks.
I simply add this to the noble Lord and his colleagues who sit on the opposite Bench. I am not quite sure what room for negotiation they think we have. They will recall that we are negotiating within the Treaty of EFTA, and they wore in power when EFTA was set up. Therefore we must, of course, have the Convention in mind. I add again that in these discussions in 1969 we shall have to try to make the most satisfactory arrangements possible, and what the noble Lord has said will certainly be borne in mind. I was also asked about distribution of fish. It does not strictly come within the limits of this Bill, but I will see if I can, either at Committee stage or by letter, say anything useful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS (UNITED KINGDOM DEPENDENCIES) ORDER 1968
3.27 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on November 5, be approved. Your Lordships will remember that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 governs the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth countries. For these purposes an "offender" is a person who is accused of, or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of, an offence which is a returnable offence under Section 3 of the Act; and "Commonwealth countries" means both the independent countries of the Commonwealth and the dependencies of the United Kingdom. Under the Act, our dependencies are deemed to include not only the Colonies proper, but the Associated States of the West Indies and the countries in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction or over which she extends protection.
In the case of the Colonies proper and the Associated States the provisions of the Act apply automatically. The return of offenders to the independent countries of the Commonwealth is, however, dependent on those countries being designated under Section 2(1) of the Act, and this has been done by the Fugitive Offenders (Designated Commonwealth Countries) Order 1967, supplemented by two similar Orders in Council in 1968 relating respectively to Mauritius and Swaziland on those countries' gaining their independence. Similarly, for the provisions of the Act to apply to the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to a protectorate or a protected State, an Order in Council is required to be made under Section 2(2)(c) of the Act specifying the country concerned. Article I of the draft Order in Council now before the House thus applies the provisions of the Act to the return of offenders to the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga.
In relation to Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga, however, the references in the 1967 Act to "The
24
Governor" are inappropriate, and Article 2 of the Order therefore provides for the modification of these references. Article 3 takes account of the fact that the New Hebrides are a condominium, and this section therefore provides that a person shall be returned there only if he is liable to be tried, or has been convicted, by the High Court of the Western Pacific or by the Joint Court.
I am sure your Lordships will be interested to learn that provision for the return of fugitives to the United Kingdom has been or will be made in the law of each of these countries and territories I have mentioned. The Fugitive Offenders (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order 1967 came into operation on January 1 of this year and the Fugitive Offenders (New Hebrides) Order 1968 on July 19, 1968. Both Brunei and Tonga have signified their intention of enacting laws similar to the 1967 Act. My Lords, I hope that with this brief explanation of the purposes of this simple but important Order you will give it your unanimous approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968, laid before the House on November 5 last, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
3.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement on the Falkland Islands. My right honourable friend the Minister of State is making a similar Statement in another place.
I visited the Falkland Islands from November 23–28 to establish direct ministerial contact with the people of the Islands and to explain to them Her Majesty's Government's policy in their talks with the Argentine Government. During my stay in the Colony, I was able to meet a large part of the Islands' population both in Stanley, the capital, and in the settlements, and I repeated to them the assurances that have been given in both Houses on many occasions this year; namely, that it is not the policy

25
of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty over these Islands against the wishes of the Islanders.
I also had a number of meetings with the Islands' Executive Council which was enlarged for the duration of my visit to include the unofficial members of the Islands' Legislative Council. On November 25 the Executive Council told me that in my meetings with the general public they would wish me to state first, that I had discussed in detail with the Executive Council the present position reached in the talks with Argentina and the position which we hoped to reach soon, and, second, that the members of the Executive Council accepted that the British Government had been acting in good faith in the talks with Argentina, and that the agreed position, if it is reached, would be fully in keeping with the promise that Her Majesty's Government would not transfer sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders; and accordingly I was able to give this additional assurance.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary explained in another place on March 26 last, and as I have explained in your Lordships' House, following the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 of December, 1965, we have had talks with Argentina with the object of securing
"a lasting and satisfactory modus vivendi between these Islands and Argentina."
In particular we are concerned to restore and improve communications between the Islands and the nearest mainland, since this would be of great benefit to the Islanders.
We have made clear throughout these discussions, as the House has been informed on many occasions, that no transfer of sovereignty can be made against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
I hope it may shortly be possible to conclude the present stage of the discussions whose outcome will then be reported to the House.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I first of all apologise to the noble Lord for not having been here when he began his Statement? But perhaps I might ask the Chief Whip whether, on
26
another occasion, he would get right the order in which the Statements are to be made, because he said that the Statement on Whitehall was coming first and then the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. While I am making a few complaints, perhaps I might suggest that on the next occasion is an open secret, as we know, that we are given a copy of Statements in advance) I might have a copy of the Statement and not the "Notes for Supplementaries" with which the noble Lord has been supplied. Useful though these tray be, they are not perhaps so definitive as the original Statement.
I must thank the noble Lord for having made the Statement. But is he aware (there is nothing personal in this at all) that his activities and the motives of Her Majesty's Government are very suspect and cause grave concern to a large number of people and not only those of us who sit on this side of the House? Will he say whether the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in January, 1966, that sovereignty was not negotiable with the Argentine, still stands? Can he tell the House whether, in point of fact, he did discuss the question of sovereignty with the Argentine Government on his recent trip?
May I also ask him whether he or Her Majesty's Government have brought any economic pressure on the Falkland Islands; and whether he said, as is reported, that Britain would no longer be able to continue to defend the Islands? Will he further give an undertaking that no pressure, whether economic or of any other kind, will be brought to influence the Falkland Islanders with regard to their status as British subjects? Finally, is he aware that a transfer of the sovereignty of the Falkland Island s without the express and free wish of the people of those Islands is totally unacceptable, and that we on this site shall oppose any proposal to the bitter end?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps I might, in turn, apologise on behalf of this side of the House if it should be any fault of ours that the noble Lord was not here at the beginning of the Statement. I am surprised that he should look a gift horse so firmly in the mouth as to complain about having a copy of the notes of supplementaries. However, I apologise that there was this confusion.

27
May I answer in order the points which the noble Lord has made? First of all, I am sorry if noble Lords opposite believe that the motives of Her Majesty's Government in this matter are suspect. I can only repeat that they are not. We have acted in good faith, and I can only repeat what I said in my opening Statement: that I have now explained to the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands the details of our discussions. I have taken them fully into the confidence of the Government, and they have said in return, and have authorised me to say to their Islanders, that they believe that the British Government is acting in good faith. I am sorry, therefore, if noble Lords opposite do not agree.
On the question of the negotiability of sovereignty, I can only say again that, in pursuance of the United Nations resolution we are discussing the matter of sovereignty with the Argentine Government. We have made no secret about this.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can only repeat that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders. We have no doubt about our legal title to the sovereignty, and I think the best way in which I can reassure the House, as I hoped to reassure the people of the Falkland Islands, is to say that their wishes in this matter are paramount. There has been no economic pressure brought to bear upon the Falkland Islands to cause them to change their minds about anything. If at any time in the future the people of the Falkland Islands wish to change their minds about this matter for any reason at all, we shall not stand in their way.
The noble Lord referred to some alleged report that I had said that Great Britain could no longer defend the Falkland Islands. I am not entirely sure where he read this report, but I am glad to take this opportunity to deny it categorically. I did in fact say that so long as the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands resided with Britain their defence was our responsibility, and that responsibility we should discharge.
To take up the last point made by the noble Lord, when he said that his side
28
of the House would oppose any transfer of sovereignty against the expressed wishes of the Islanders, there has indeed been no pressure of any kind. I can assure him that there will be no need for noble Lords opposite to resist this, because, as I have said three times in my opening Statement—and perhaps I may say it again for the fourth time to-day, and for the umpteenth time in the course of this discussion—it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty of these Islands against the wishes of the Islanders.
3.42 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement, and I would only hope that if on toe next occasion the Opposition Front Bench have a copy of the Supplementary Notes, we may have the same privilege. However, I make no complaint of that to-day. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to one fact about the Statement: that while he has given a full explanation to the Executive Council of the Falkland Islands, he has not given any full explanation to this House, and we are very much in the dark as to what is the nature of these conversations. Is it not a fact that the declaration, the resolution by the United Nations, plus the visit to the Argentine and to the Falkland Islands by the noble Lord in themselves are pressure brought upon the Falkland Islanders? Can he undertake, not only that there will be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders but that no pressure of any kind will be brought to bear upon them to this end—either subtle pressure or obvious pressure?
For example, are the present Government doing all they can to develop the Falkland Islands? The noble Lord will remember that he has had a letter from Alginate Industries Limited offering a big plan for the development of the Falkland Islands, and it is said by the Managing Director, Mr. Merton, that he has not had a reply from the noble Lord to his letter. This, if true, does not indicate any great desire on the part of the noble Lord to put the Falkland Islands into a position where they are able to maintain their economy in a proper and flourishing manner.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I take up first the comment that although I have made a full explanation to the Government of the Falkland Islands I have not made it to your Lordships' House? I think the difference is that if I were to make in your Lordships' House a statement of the details, it would be a public statement. The statement I made to the Government of the Falkland Islands was made under the oath of secrecy which members of that Government take. I regret that it should sometimes be necessary to carry out diplomacy in secret or to carry out diplomacy confidentally, but I am afraid it is necessary, and it would certainly not be in the interests of intelligent foreign policy always to conduct diplomacy in public. There has not been, and I can assure the noble Lord there will not be, any pressure of any kind, whether direct or indirect, on the Falkland Islanders to change their mind.
May I take this opportunity to reply to what was implied in the noble Lord's question but put more explicity in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to say that I do not agree that my visit to Argentina can be taken in any way to be pressure on the Falkland Islanders. My visit to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Buenos Aires was purely a courtesy visit, paid as I spent a night in Buenos Aires on my way home, and I can assure the noble Lord that no negotiations of substance at all were entered into with him or with the Argentine Government by me.
So far as the question about Alginate Industries is concerned, I think this might be an opportunity to put this matter in its proper perspective. I have received a letter from the managing director of this organisation. I received it in Chile the day before I left for the Falkland Islands, and perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that he has not yet received a reply. Secondly, I think it should be made clear that the same firm were in touch with the Government of the Falkland Islands long before they were in touch with me. Therefore, to say that the Falkland Islanders, as has been suggested, have been kept in ignorance is very wide of the mark. May I make another point? It is that when this firm contacted the Governor of the Falkland Islands to tell him about this scheme, they indicated that it was not likely to take place in the
30
near future. In fact, they said that their supplies of seaweed—for the information of your Lordships' House, this is a firm that processes seaweed and makes industrial products from it—would be sufficient to make it unnecessary for them to go outside Europe for their supplier, for at least another five or ten years. The Governor of the Falkland Islands therefore replied to this letter saying that he was sorry that there did not seem to be anything but a remote possibility of even a pilot scheme for this kind of industry. I think it important to put all this in context and to acquaint your Lordships' House of the position, in view of same of the reports that have appeared in the Press.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the explicit assurances he has given to-day. It will do a great deal, I am confident, to relieve the minds of many people in this country. I have one question and it is about, not the negotiations, but the talks with the Argentine Government. I wanted just one item of explanation. First of all, the noble Lord, as I understood it, said that there were talks and that the subject of sovereignty was mentioned. Then afterwards he said that the visit was merely one of courtesy and that there were no negotiations. I do not quite see how those two fit in together.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for the comment that he made upon my original Statement. I am glad he thinks that this will go far to reassure the Horse and the people of this country. I think that it has also gone a good way to reassure the people of the Falkland Islands. Perhaps I could explain where I think the misunderstanding has arisen about talks, negotiations and courtesy calls. We have for some time been engaged in talks with the Government of Argentina at the official level in pursuance of the United Nations resolution. However, when I myself passed through Buenos Aires two days ago on my way from the Falkland Islands I contented myself with paying a courtesy call upon the Foreign Minister, and I did not pursue those negotiations.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lorfd whether he can clear up one point? Do the Government

31
interpret the resolution of the United Nations as requesting them to transfer sovereignty in these islands, even if the Argentine has no legal claim of any kind to have that sovereignty transferred? If they do not so interpret the resolution of the United Nations, why are they discussing the transfer of sovereignty? If, on the other hand, they do so interpret the request of the United Nations, is it not the fact that such a request of the United Nations has no basis whatsoever in the Charter?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I can best answer that somewhat involved question by saying that we do not interpret the United Nations resolution as a requirement to us to hand over sovereignty in any circumstances at all. The United Nations resolution requires us to engage in discussions with the Argentine Government about this question, taking into consideration the interests of the people of the Islands. That is what we are doing.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have made it quite clear to the Argentine that in no circumstances whatsoever has the Argentine any right over the Falkland Islands?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that this is ranging rather far. In the talks with the Argentine Government we have made clear what I have made clear publicly in your Lordships' House, that whatever may be the basis of these discussions there can be no question of transferring sovereignty against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, while wishing to join with what the noble Marquess has said about the good effect that these statements by the Minister should have, may I ask him one further question? Perhaps this illustrates the difficulty of the United Nations. Would not much the simplest statement to make have been that these Islands will not be transferred to the Argentine Government and that this issue does not arise? If, instead, the Minister says that they will not be transferred against the wishes of the Islanders, is not this a different statement altogether and putting the onus on the Islanders? Surely the onus is on the British Government to say that
32
this is not transferable territory and that we do not accept the legal claims of the Argentine Government.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I must confess that I am surprised to hear such a suggestion coming from a distinguished diplomat with the record of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia. To say that in diplomacy we should use the word "never" I take to be a very doubtful proposition indeed. I must make it clear that if a time were to come when the Falkland Islanders themselves were to decide that their interests lay in some change, then we certainly should not want to stand in their way. This is precisely the point of view which we have taken over Gibraltar. Simply to say, when a sovereign State has made a claim of this kind and when we have been required by the United Nations to discuss it, that we will never transfer sovereignty would not be a very intelligent form of diplomacy. We have throughout made it clear that we have no doubt about our legal title to the sovereignty over the Islands.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the difficulty—and I do not think I accept what my noble friend Lord Salisbury says—is that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says will not, I think, reassure people, because he has not this afternoon said anything different from what he has said before. He has before made the pledge about the wishes of the Islanders. The only thing different he has said today is that no pressure is being brought upon them. But he and I know that there is still a very great deal of disquiet, and the reason is that we do not know what is happening. We do not know what is going on, or what the Government are saying to the Argentine Government; we do not know what the noble Lord said to the Executive Council. The sooner he can make public what he is doing, the more we shall believe what he says. But until what is being done is made public, I am very sorry to say that I do not believe your Lordships will be entirely reassured with what the Government are doing.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am. sorry to hear the noble Lord say that. As I said in the original Statement, I hope that it soon may be possible to conclude the present stage of the discussions so

33
that they can be reported to the House. I am sorry to hear the noble Lord say that there is still a great deal of disquiet about this matter. It may be that these doubts will not be fully cleared up until a public statement can be made. I would remind him that I was able, under the oath of secrecy, to tell the Executive Council a good deal more than I have been able to tell your Lordships. I took them fully into our confidence. I would repeat that the Executive Council (and I imagine that they have the interests of the Falkland Islands as much at heart as anybody) accepted that the British Government have been acting in good faith in their talks with the Argentine. If I cannot reassure the House, I hope that the statement by the Government of the Falkland Islands will go some way to reassure them.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, I should like to put one supplementary question, and say that I, too, am a little surprised that a Minister should not follow the line which we follow in Parliament. If there has been no request by the Falkland Islanders to be transferred, then any question of what would arise about their transfer against their wishes is a hypothetical question which does not arise.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that we are getting a little wide of the mark. The noble Lord will know, from his long and distinguished experience of foreign affairs, that this kind of discussion between sovereign States does go on. We are engaged in these discussions, in pursuance of the United Nations resolutions, and what we have been able to do throughout is to make it absolutely clear that the wishes of the Islanders are paramount. I do not know what more reassurance and guarantee the noble Lord wants.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question on a somewhat different point. Can we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will, now and in the future, continue to give the Falkland Islands all the economic help necessary for the development of the Islands and also that if we are willing to give a large amount of aid to underdeveloped countries which have the most unfriendly relations with us that we shall be thoroughly generous to the Falkland Islanders in all schemes for
34
their future development under the British Crown?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I need hardly say to the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government—indeed, British Governments of all corn plexions—have never failed to stand by their Colonies and dependent territories when they were in need, financially or otherwise, but I cannot enter into any commitments on this point beyond saying just that. However, I should like to point out to the House two statistics which may be relevant in considering the question of future aid. The first is that the per capita income in the Falkland Islands is £500 per head, only marginally smaller than the per capita income of the United Kingdom. The second statistic is that the highest rate of income tax in the Falkland Islands is 5s. 9d. in the pound, which is rather different from the highest rate of income tax in this country. I think that those two points may be relevant in considering the question of future aid.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would ask my noble friend whether it is true that he is the first British Minister ever to have visited these Islands?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, yes, that indeed is the position. Throughout all the history of our contacts with the Falkland Islands a member of a Labour Administration was the first Minister to visit the Islands.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there has been discussion between himself and the Argentine Government on the question of sovereignty. He has also said that there would be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the Islanders. Can the noble Lord say what economic or communications "bait", if I may put it that way, has been put forward by the Argentine Government possibly to tempt the Islanders to transfer their sovereignty?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, let me make one thing clear. I have said that talks have been going on at an official level. I have not said that I have had negotiations with the Argentine Government. That should be made absolutely clear. So far as any "bait", as the noble Lord puts it, is concerned, it is an unfortunate way of phrasing the

35
question. All I can say is that the Argentine Government have recently and publicly expressed their readiness to improve communications with the Islanders in various ways and I believe that an improvement of communications, an improvement in economic and cultural links between the mainland and the Falkland Islands could only be in the interests of the Islanders.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, from what the noble Lord said to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into negotiations for the transfer of any British territory without any request for that first having come from the inhabitants of the territory, and secondly without there being any legal claim whatsoever by the country which is seeking to acquire sovereignty? If there is thought by Her Majesty's Government to be any legal claim by the Argentine to this territory, could the noble Lord explain what it is? If there is no legal claim, does it mean that whenever there is a United Nations resolution the Government will be ready to enter into negotiations about the transfer of a territory? It all seems odd to me
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not surprised that it seems odd to the noble Viscount, if he thinks that that is what I said. I said nothing of the kind. I merely said that we had had a claim to sovereignty made by the Argentine Government which they believe to be a valid claim. We have said that we have no doubt about our legal title over the sovereignty of the Islands. But first of all, in pursuance of the United Nations resolution and, secondly, because we believe it to be in the best interests of the Islanders, we have entered into discussions about this matter. All I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, was that on any subject at all, whether it was to do with sovereignty or anything else, I as a Foreign Office Minister should be very careful about using the word "never".
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the fact that some of us on this side of the House are getting the impression that
36
some noble Lords opposite are trying to place in the minds of the people of the Falkland Islands some doubts which do not exist.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I hope that everything we do—and I am sure this is true of both sides of the House—will be done in the hope that it will be in pursuance of the real and lasting interests of the people of the Falkland Islands.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can supplement the information that he has given to this extent? When he says that the Argentinians claim sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, does he mean simply that they say, "Sovereignty is ours", or have they given some particulars of the basis of their claim? If they have given any particulars of the basis of their claim, can they be made public?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be wrong for me to make public anything that has not yet been made public, until we have completed this stage of the discussions. As I promised in my Statement, when we have done that—and I hope it will be soon—the full details will be made known to the House.

WHITEHALL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.2 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. It is as follows:
"Since the Statement about the Whitehall Redevelopment Plan by my right honourable friend the Minister for Leeds, West, on 3rd November, 1965, there have been a number of developments. Studies have been made of the requirements to be met in a new Parliamentary building on part of the Bridge Street/Richmond Terrace site, and the Select Committee on House of Commons Services have made proposals in their Fourth Report for the 1967–68 Session. It is necessary that this House should consider these proposals, and I hope that an opportunity

37
for this will be found soon. The preparation of detailed requirements and the completion of the architectural arrangements can then be undertaken.
"Studies have been carried out into requirements for Government offices on the remainder of the Bridge Street/ Richmond Terrace site, and a brief prepared providing also for shops, restaurants and other public facilities. The Minister is investigating further the advantages of open-plan offices, and meanwhile preparing plans which will be submitted in due course to the Royal Fine Art Commission and the planning authorities, and then displayed in this House. The programme envisages demolition work starting early in 1970 between Richmond Terrace and Derby Gate, and proceeding in stages with a view to completing the Government offices and associated development by 1975.
"As stated in the House on 16th July, 1968, all three of the former Metropolitan Police Headquarters buildings will be demolished in the course of this redevelopment. No plans or programme have yet been made for the future of the Foreign Office site. Following the public inquiry in May, 1966, into the future of the site between Broad Sanctuary and Great George Street, my Ministry is preparing in collaboration with other site owners and interested authorities a joint brief for a comprehensive redevelopment.
"A joint study is now in hand between my Ministry, the Ministry of Transport, the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council, with the assistance of consultants, to investigate in more detail proposals for dealing with North-South traffic, including a riverside road tunnel, and the problem of East-West traffic, as the proposal for widening the Horseferry Road route would be too costly. I expect to have a report on these further studies next spring. The House will see, from what I have said, that the working out of detailed proposals is proceeding within the broad framework agreed following the Martin-Buchanan Reports."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating
38
that Statement. It would seem that in the last three years, despite what is said in the last words of the Statement, extraordinarily little progress has been made in this matter. I noted what the noble Lord said about the development of the Parliamentary building on the Bridge Street site. Can he assure us that the views of this House will be take n into account in this matter, as well as the views of another place, because, greatly daring, I would venture to suggest that on these matters of æsthetic and architectural judgment our views are as valid as those of another place?
The Statement also said that these proposals fall within the broad framework of those put forward by Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan. I suggest that that is brought in rather as an afterthought. Indeed, I beg leave to doubt whether that is in fact the case, because I would remind your Lordships that Sir Leslie Martin had very definite ideas about the development of the Foreign Office site, and we now read that there are no plans and no programme for this. Is there anything more that the noble Lord can tell us about this particular and, to many of us, much-beloved building? Are we, in fact, "back to square one"? What is the position regarding the Foreign Office site?
In conclusion, may I just put this point to the noble Lord? Sir Leslie Martin produced a vast and comprehensive Report which had very considerable merit and was debated at some length in your Lordships' House about three years ago. Since then there have been new and sweeping proposals for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus and, indeed, of the Covent Garden area. I am not usually an advocate of delay, but on this occasion I should like to declare myself a Fabian. I would urge—and I put point seriously to the Government and to the planning authorities involved—that no really major change (though I except the Bridge Street site from this) in the development of this vastly important area of Central London should be given effect to until all these various major schemes have been properly brought together and considered together. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance along those lines.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, we, too, welcome this Statement. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that three years is a very long time. On the other hand, it is so complex a problem that I am not surprised that even to get "back—and I hope we are not back—to square one" has taken us three years. I hope that the noble Lord on the Government Benches is going to say that we too are to have a debate, and that before we have that debate he will be able to put before us in good time those papers, plans and models without which we cannot make any useful contribution.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether a final decision has been taken to destroy Richmond Terrace, with all its architectural merits and Parliamentary associations?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I speak rather in the fear that the new buildings are very likely, or more likely than not, to be in the current fashion of the concrete and glass box. May I ask the noble Lord whether there are any architects in the country who have other ideas than that, and whether he does not think that something a little more original would be suitable?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, have said. I was, of course, repeating a Statement made in another place, and the words used were that "this House should consider these proposals", and that information will be given before another place discusses it. Quite obviously, the plans must be available for this House as well, and I am certain that my right honourable friend will note the wish of this House to discuss the development on the far side of Bridge Street. This is obviously rational and desirable.
The noble Earl has expressed an affection for the Foreign Office. I know only too well that he is not alone here. Perhaps that is a reason why no decision has been reached, although that is a thought which has only just come to me. All I can say is that no plans or programme have yet been made for the future of the Foreign Office site; so it stays where it is for the moment. On the question of delay (and this is a point
40
which was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley), this redevelopment is not something we can rush. The only site of the three which is under discussion is the site between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street. This scheme goes forward in stages and will be completed by 1975. No plans have been made for the Foreign Office site. Although the Broad Sanctuary site seems to be a blank space, it is a complicated development because there are other interests involved and, again, no plans have so far been made.
I would agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that we should hasten slowly and see what the overall picture is. I have substantial sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, although I am afraid we are both losers. I, too, should like to retain the Richmond Terrace site, but unfortunately this has to go. The noble Lord, Lord Somers. made a point about "concrete and glass boxes". The design for this particular site will be subject to open competition among Commonwealth architects. The site is of Commonwealth interest, and of great importance. Let us hope that within the Commonwealth we find an architect of sufficient vision to provide something better than a straightforward egg-box.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask whether it follows from what the noble Lord has just said that all these buildings will be let out to distinguished architects, or will the architects be Ministry of Works architects? May I also ask him whether, now that it has been decided that nothing will be done with the Foreign Office, at any rate for some little time, consideration can be given to cleaning it?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult position, which I hope the noble Lord will appreciate. In fact, I know the answer to this question, but I am not authorised to give it. Perhaps he would be so kind as to put down a Question. This is an entirely different matter, and I could have said that this was another question; but I have not done so. There is an answer to this.
LORD CARRINGTON: An answer to which question?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: To the question about the architect. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would put down another Question, when I would be glad to answer it. On the question of cleaning, there has been pressure to clean that building as well. Perhaps the noble Lord would ask another Question on that point at the same time.
4.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is one question that I should like to ask, arising from the last statement by the noble Lord. He said there was a Commonwealth interest in this site. Is it a Commonwealth Government interest? I ask that because when New Zealand House was built many people were opposed to the particular building which was adopted, thinking it unsuitable for the site, but we were told at that time that the authorities planning London had no control over it. It was said that if the site was for a Commonwealth Government the Commonwealth Government had an absolutely free hand as to what was put up. I hope that that will not be so in this case.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood the point. What he said about New Zealand House, which I did not know myself, was interesting, but, as regards this site, it will not be for a Commonwealth Government but for a Commonwealth architect. The competition will be thrown open to the whole Commonwealth to provide schemes to be considered for a building on this site.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider whether it is possible to provide the additional accommodation that is required on the site of the Bridge Street building between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street, so as to avoid the destruction of Richmond Terrace?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this loss is unfortunate, but a decision has been reached. The site between Richmond Terrace and Bridge Street is to he cleared, and a new open-planned office block built upon it. But the whole area must go. We cannot, unfortunately, save Richmond Terrace, much as I myself should like to see it saved.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, my noble friend has repeatedly said that there will be a competition open to Commonwealth architects. I take it that included in "Commonwealth architects" are British architects.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My noble friend is quite right.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on what he said about traffic? I think he referred to a tunnel. Do I understand that that takes the place of what I think was formerly proposed: that there should be a new physical separation or terrace between the Palace of Westminster and the river? Or does that terrace or new separation of the Palace of Westminster from the river still survive as a proposal, notwithstanding the proposal for a tunnel?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. If we had plans we would see what is intended. We shall all agree, I think, that the Palace of Westminster is the greatest obstacle to a free traffic flow along the Thames, but we should not wish to alter that, I am certain.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I put two further supplementary questions to the noble Lord—the first a narrow one? The noble Lord told my noble Leader just now that if he were to put down a Question about the cleaning of the Foreign Office doubtless an Answer would be given. By the same taken, if I were to put down a Question about the cleaning of the Great George street building should I also receive a satisfactory Answer? That is the narrower question. The wider question—and I attach some importance to this—is that the noble Lord said that he, too, believed in hastening slowly. Am I right in taking that answer to mean that the Minister will use his influence—and he has quite definite authority here, if he chooses to exercise it—to see that the major plans for the redevelopment of Whitehall are considered in conjunction with those for Piccadilly and the Covent Garden area?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as regards cleaning I can certain13 get the noble Earl an Answer, although I am no longer in a position to say whether

43
it will be satisfactory. But London is being cleaned, and let us hope that the good work goes on. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl would ask me another Question on another day about the relationship between the Piccadilly development and this development. I cannot give him a satisfactory answer to-day.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
4.16 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill. This Bill has been carefully considered in another place, and your Lordships may think that there is not a great deal more that I can add to what is already known. Of course, if there are any particular questions I shall be glad to do what I can to answer them, either on this Second Reading or, as might be even more convenient, at the later Committee stage.
There are three clauses to the Bill. Clause I increases the maximum capital available to the Civil Contingencies Fund from £75 million to £125 million. Clause 2 makes provision for payments to the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man out of revenues accruing to the United Kingdom Government under licences granted by the Minister for the exploration and the exploitation of oil resources in the United Kingdom's portion of the Continental Shelf. Clause 3 makes provision for the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to borrow on the Eurocurrency market. It does not extend in total the borrowing powers of the Corporation, but it does make available to them facilities already enjoyed by certain other public corporations. It is held by Her Majesty's Government to be in the interests both of the I.R.C. and of the economy generally that these borrowing powers should be available. With that brief explanation of this very brief Bill, and with my repeated offer to try to answer questions either now or later, I hope your Lordships will now agree to this Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.18 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this is the first occasion in your Lordships' House on which I have ventured to intervene on a Treasury subject. My only justification for doing so is that, in the capacity of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I was responsible for introducing and piloting through another place the 1955 Bill that became the Act which is amended by Clause 1, the principal clause, of this Bill. My Bill was more miscellaneous and more comprehensive than this one, for it covered five wholly unrelated items, whereas this Bill covers only three. I say it was more comprehensive because, so far as I know, that Act for which I was responsible has survived unamended for 13 years. If my experience was any guide, a Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill gets into the legislative programme only when the Government of the day are not quite ready with more important Bills, and have Parliamentary time to fill up. No doubt this was why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had the good luck to be able to introduce this Bill in another place a few weeks ago.
Following the probing undertaken in another place, I have no further questions to ask on Clauses 2 and 3, but I should like to dwell for a moment on Clause 1, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will agree is the most important clause. The Civil Contingencies Fund enables the Government to produce money quickly for, broadly, two purposes: first, to meet unforseeable situations, such as grave flooding; and, secondly, to meet unforeseen situations, such as having under-estimated the expenditure likely to be incurred during the financial year on a particular service.
So far as I am aware, no one questions the need for adequate provision to meet the former, the unforseeable, situation; but it would make a mockery of Parliamentary control of finance if there were no effective limit to the amount available to the Government to meet situations that might have been foreseen but were not foreseen. I think, therefore, that I was acting on sound principle when in 1955 I was instrumental in reducing the top limit of the Civil Contingencies Fund from the rather extraordinary figure of £126½ million to £75 million, the amount at which it remains at the present time.

45
I recollect that the Party opposite then criticised me for not reducing the limit to much below £75 million. Now that they are in power they are proposing to restore the limit, broadly, to the higher figure front which we in 1955 reduced it. Now that I am in Opposition I am not proposing to ridicule their proposal of £125 million—which just shows the difference between responsible Opposition and irresponsible Opposition.
I think, however, that the Government should explain more clearly why they believe £125 million is the right figure now. Frankly, I was not able to follow the explanation given by the Chief Secretary in another place. We should all, I am sure. agree that with the altered value of money it is not unreasonable to suggest that some other maximum limit than £75 million should be fixed low. But what should that figure be? The Chief Secretary said in another place on November 8:
"In 1955 the Fund was fixed at £75 million. In 1963 we adopted as a regular procedure a further batch of Supplementary Estimates, and it is now right to consider what should be a comparable figure, having regard to the circumstance r. not only of 1955 but also of 1963. Hawing regard to the size of the expenditure and to the additional hatch of Supplementary Estimates, the figure would be about £140 million, but I want to err, as usual, on the cautious side, and I am suggesting a figure of £125 million, which I hope will be acceptable to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1225]
My Lords, I appreciate how the Chief Secretary reduced the theoretical figure of £140 million to an actual figure of £125 million, but I am unable to follow his arithmetic in deriving £140 million from £75 million. We all know that the size of Government expenditure has increased. The other consideration that he mentioned was the additional batch of Supplementary Estimates, now four a year instead of three a year. But having additional Supplementary Estimates each year surely lessens rather than increases the need for money in the Civil Contingencies Fund. Knowing the Treasury as I do, I have no doubt at all that this £140 million was reached by an accurate process of mathematical thought. I am merely suggesting that before this Bill leaves Parliamentary scrutiny, the mathematics of it should be explained. Possibly the noble Lord would prefer to do so on the Committee stage.
46
I know that that justification for the very existence of such a fund as the Civil Contingencies Fund has been called in question in the past. I accept, as all Governments have accepted, that it is desirable, indeed necessary, that a fund of this sort should exist. If noble Lords care to look at the accounts of the Civil Contingency Fund which are published each year they will see that in 1966–67 the sums advanced from the Fund ranged from an amount of some £12,798,000 to the Transport Boards down to an ex gratia payment of £436 to a voter injured at a polling station and on to an item described as "equipage expenses incurred by" my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne. Equipage, according to the dictionary, means
"a carriage with or without horses and the attendant servants".
As my noble and learned friend received only £54, I doubt whether he was able to obtain the attendant servants, or even the horses, or even a carriage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord can rest assured that I have never been able to secure a horse that could carry me at anything like that figure.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I appreciate that. I cannot help thinking that the term "equipage" must have been related to one of the alternative meanings of the word. I quoted it only to show how wide is the variety of circumstances for which a Civil Contingencies Fund is desirable. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I have no desire to delay the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was a little surprised when the noble Lord started to tell us that this was his first intervention in a discussion on Treasury matters. It was not until later that I realised that what I had in mind were his very frequent interventions in another place. Then, when lie went on to say that he was going to deal with Clause 1, I had all the more reason to realise that his training in these matters came from when he was in a House which had rather more responsibility than do we for Supply matters. I had anticipated that I might have questions on Clause 3,

47
as I know there is a good deal of interest in the Euro-dollar and Eurocurrency; but I had not dreamt that I should be asked about Clause 1. However I will do my best to answer what the noble Lord has asked me about the case for the increase which is proposed and whether it will be enough.
The noble Lord gave us some uses of the Fund. Probably the most important nowadays is as a fund from which advances are drawn in anticipation of Parliament's willingness to pass Supplementary Estimates. It has to do this on a gross basis because savings on one Vote are not available to make up deficiencies on another, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will know. Obviously, there is no way of telling in advance what will be required outside the scope of the Estimates that are submitted. But the potential call must clearly be related to the size of those Estimates. In the current year, Estimates totalled £8,700 million, rather more than three times as much as the proportion in 1955–56. On a simple arithmetical basis, that would require a Fund of the order of £225 million.
The introduction of Winter Supply as a regular basis in 1963–64 has taken pressure off the Fund in two ways. First, the cash it provides some six weeks or so earlier than the end of the March Consolidated Fund Act enables advances already made from the Fund to be repaid and the money turned over again if required. Secondly, it enables the Government to finance from Votes new expenditures which will arise in the last six weeks of the financial year, provided that these can be foreseen in the previous October, when the Winter Supplementary Estimates are prepared. It is difficult to quantify precisely the effect of these two factors, but when the present £75 million limit was fixed about 20 per cent. was used before the last quarter began, leaving some 80 per cent. for that quarter. On a similar basis now, a fund of £125 million may be expected to leave £100 million for the last quarter; but this now has only to last until the fund is replenished by repayments following the February Consolidated Fund Act. If, therefore, the calls on the Fund divide conveniently enough on either side of
48
that Act, a £125 million fund with Winter Supply may be said to be equivalent to £225 million without it. At best, therefore, the figure which we are now suggesting should be about right and comparable with the 1955 figure for which the noble Lord himself was responsible. I hope that goes some way to fill in the gaps in the noble Lord's knowledge and that we may now pass the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Grant of certificate by trial judge]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("decision") and insert ("final judgment").
The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In the hope that it may relieve anxieties in certain parts of the Committee, may I say that this is the only Amendment standing in my name which I propose to move, despite the large number that there are on the Order Paper. The reason why I am not moving them is that the Amendments tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor substantially meet to my satisfaction, and I think to the satisfaction of my noble friends, the questions which were raised during the Second Reading.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for answering in correspondence one point on an earlier clause which has made it unnecessary for me to raise anything on that earlier clause; and also for the explanation which he sent me with regard to Part III of the Bill. I said that we should require a full explanation of Part III, but now that I have had such a full explanation I would not seek to occupy the time of the Committee by asking more on I hat point.
With regard to this Amendment, there is a small point which I think not wholly unimportant. It is this. Under this Part there will be what we lawyers call "leapfrog" proposals. Clause 12(1) provides that it shall apply, "Where the trial judge is satisfied". That seems to me to imply (particularly when you look at the definition of "trial judge"; a judge who is hearing the case and determining) that that determination will almost invariably end in judgment for one party or the other. The language here used is different. In line 40 you find a reference to "his decision in those proceedings"; and not to his "judgment" in those proceedings. It puzzles me to know why in this Bill (this is not the only place) despite the reference to the determination being by the trial judge or the commissioner appointed in lieu of a judge, the decision is the matter referred to and not the judgment.
I think that the Amendment which I have tabled is wrong in that I have suggested the words "final judgment". I think it ought to be "judgment" simpliciter. That would mean that the judgment given at the hearing would be subject to this "leapfrog" procedure. It would, as I understand it, rule out any "leapfrog" procedure in relation to interlocutory matters. I cannot help thinking that that is what is intended, but I am not at all clear; and I do not think it is very clear whether the words "decision in those proceedings" is of wider ambit than "judgment in those proceedings". If it is not "judgment" seems to me the preferable word to use. If you use the word "decision", it may cause some doubt.
I do not want to take up time pursuing this matter. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to look at it sympathetically. I can tell him that I ant not alone in feeling some
50
anxiety about the use of the word "decision" and the consequences that may ensue. It may be that he was thinking of a case where a demurrer was raised and that the decision was upon a point raised, say, upon the pleadings. I would apprehend that if the decision by a judge was that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of acion, that would be followed by judgment for the defendant. Then the "leapfrog" procedure would apply. If the judge did not take that course, the case would go on until judgment was given one way or another, and then again the "leapfrog" procedure might apply. I cannot see the need for the word "decision".
That is the only point I wish to raise. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to deal with it to-day, but I should be very content if he said that he would look at it. This is not meant to be a wrecking Amendment in any way. May I say "Thank you" to him for the trouble he has taken to meet the points of view expressed by me and by others during the Second Reading debate? I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that there are really two separate points here. One is entirely a question of terminology and the other is the question whether interlocutory decisions should be excluded. On the question of terminology, one can argue about words for a long time. But regarding the words in the Bill, the word "decision" is used to refer to what the judge decides, upon which an order is drawn up. The word "judgment" is applied to that which in substance is usually a document, containing the reasons why he makes his decision. Because of that I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that in line 40 on page 6 the word "decision" is right because that is what is referred to there. And so on page 7 in the second line:
"…it is expedient that an appeal should lie from that decision…"
So in line 19;
"…a point of law of general public importance is involved in that decision…"
When we come to line 20 it,
"relates wholly or mainly to the construction…and has been fully argued in the proceedings and fully considered in the judgment…"

51
That is the place where he gives the reasons for his decision. The same thing, I suggest, applies in line 36, a
"period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which that judgment is given…
If a judge says, "Well, my decision is so-and-so, and I shall give my reasons in my judgment at a later date", it is often impossible adequately to advise clients whether or not to appeal until you know the reasons for his decision. That is why that date is, I suggest, quite properly taken from the date of the judgment. That is on the technical question of which word is appropriate to be used.
On the other question, it is not intended to exclude interlocutory decisions. As the noble and learned Viscount knows, in view of the opinions which he and other noble and learned Lords expressed on Second Reading, I had the advantage of discussing questions which arose with the other noble and learned Lords. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount was unable to be present. I think I am representing the general views properly if I say that it was generally felt that there was, in substance, a choice. Noble and learned Lords were apprehensive that there might be too many cases to which this procedure might be aplied and, broadly speaking, that that could be dealt with in one of two ways: either by making more strict the criteria or limiting the conditions governing the cases in question; or by leaving to the Appeal Committee of this House the last word as to whether in a particular case this procedure should he applied or not. I think the general feeling was—it is reflected in the Amendments which I have since put down—that there was no need to limit or restrict the cases further than they were already limited or restricted, provided that the last word was left with the Appeal Committee which my Amendments now do.
Of course, I quite agree that there would be few interlocutory cases in which a judge and the Appeal Committee itself would both think should be subject to this procedure. But there may be some (Donoghue v. Stevenson was a Scottish case) which were decided on a demurrer by way of interlocutory proceedings. The only one I can remember I was in myself; it was Michael Foot v. Lord
52
Kemsley, which also went to your Lordships' House, not as a case on the question whether a statement of claim disclosed a good cause of action but whether the defence constituted an arguable defence. In view of the decision of your Lordships' House, it never became necessary for the case to be heard. What the Court of Appeal, and subsequently your Lordships' House, were supposed to be considering was whether there was an arguable case. The Court of Appeal said that it was an arguable defence, and went on to say that as they had heard the law on both sides, it was unfortunate that they had to leave it to the trial judge. They might as well have said that it was a good defence. Your Lordships' House subsequently took the same course and expressed the same opinion.
Therefore, I should regret it if it were an object of this Amendment that those cases, though they may be few, should be deliberately excluded from the benefit of the "leapfrog" provisions, particularly having in mind that they are likely to be few and that this procedure will not he applied to them unless the judge is of the opinion that they should be and the Appeal Committee is of the same opinion. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount had no opportunity of discussing these matters with us but I understand that he had other engagements. I hope that having heard what I have said, and if the noble and learned Lords concur, he will consider withdrawing this Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I do not entirely agree on the interpretation he places on the word "judgment", because often there can be a judgment delivered, in the sense of giving the reasons, ending up with the order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff for £X, £Y or £Z. The judgment is in the form of an order. The word can be used in both senses. I have raised this point because it did not seem to me clear, from the language used and in particular the conjunction of the reference of the decision to the trial judge, whether it was intended to apply to appeals from interlocutory orders, which might be made by persons who in no circumstances could be regarded as trial judges. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will look at that. I do not want to

53
take up time, but I think there is a difficulty between these two constructions.
I think that there would seldom be any "leapfrogging" in interlocutory proceedings. The noble and learned Lord referred to Donoghue v. Stevenson, which was a Scottish case. After the litigation came to this House, at the end of the day, when it went back for trial, the snail was not found in the ginger beer bottle and the question was whether the manufacturers would have been liable had the snail been there. That was an example which rather shows the danger of "leapfrogging", but I would not oppose that. I will gladly withdraw this Amendment, in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at the language of this subsection, because I think that the use of the words "trial judge" might lead to difficulties in the future.
LORD CHORLEY: I want to underwrite what the noble and learned Viscount has just said about the expression "trial judge". It is a long time since I practised at the Bar, but at that time there were a certain number of interlocutory cases which decided matters of great importance, and though there might be an appeal to the judge who would uphold the master, it could hardly be said that he was the trial judge. The noble and learned Lord quoted the Scottish case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. If I put some of my students on to research, I think that we could find a few others. I think it would be unfortunate if on a matter of construction these cases were excluded from this procedure. If a wider form of words could be found between now and the next stage, it would be very helpful.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I gave way to the noble Lord thinking that he was going to ask me a question. I would gladly give way to him at any time I could count on his supporting me.
LORD CHORLEY: I did not think I should be entitled to speak if the noble and learned Viscount had already withdrawn his Amendment. I had to get in while there was a chance.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line I, leave out from ("expedient") to ("and") in line 2 and insert ("to enable an application to be made for leave to appeal under this Part of this Act ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is in the nature of a paving Amendment for the new clause to be inserted after Clause 12. Under the Bill as drafted, the decision to allow a case to go directly to the House of Lords rests with the trial judge. If he certifies, first, that the relevant conditions are fulfilled; secondly, that it is expedient that an appeal should lie direct to the House of Lords and, thirdly, that all parties consent to the grant of a certificate, the case will by-pass the Court of Appeal and go direct to the House of Lords. The Evershed Committee, for reasons which they gave, thought that the trial judge was the person to determine, these things, and added:
"there is no doubt that by so leaving it to the trial judge the greatest saving in costs is achieved. Moreover, the trial judge will necessarily be fully seized of all the facts and circumstances of the case and will therefore require no further or separate application to be made".
During the Second Reading debate a number of noble and learned Lords strongly urged that an application for a "leapfrog" certificate should be made to the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords instead of to the trial judge. Since the Second Reading debate there have been discussions with the Lords of Appeal which have made it possible for the Government to accept this suggestion. They agree that the final decision whether a case should go direct to the House of Lords should rest with the Appeal Committee, on the understanding that they would deal with the matter on the papers, without a hearing The trial judge would still have to give a certificate but it would simply show that in his view the case was a proper one in which an application might be made. The parties would be able to apply to the Appeal Committee accordingly and this Amendment effects the necessary alterations in Clause 12(1)(b). I beg to move.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: May I raise one point with regard to this Amendment, only with the desire to help

55
in regard to the wording? May I take this opportunity of associating myself with what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said in expressing our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving such careful consideration to all the points that have been raised? The point that I wish to put forward in regard to paragraph (b) is purely in regard to the language, because I am in entire agreement with the line which the noble and learned Lord is proposing.
The trial judge would hear an application and would have to be seized of three matters. First,
"that the relevant conditions are fulfilled in relation to his decision in those proceedings…"
that is in paragraph (a); second,
"that all the parties to the proceedings consent to the grant of a certificate under this section,…"
I think that these words, which appear in paragraph (c), are quite clear. But then the new paragraph (b) would read:
"that it is expedient to enable an application to be made for leave to appeal…"
The point I put for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is whether the trial judge would fully understand what he is asked to do under this new language. One judge may think, "I am asked to form a judgment as to whether I think it is expedient that the case should be heard by the House of Lords direct, assuming that the Appeal Committee approve." Another judge might think, under the present language, "All I am asked to do is just to be satisfied that it is expedient that an application should be made, without my applying my mind at all to the question whether I think it is expedient that an appeal should go direct to the House of Lords." It occurs to me that if the trial judge thought: "No, I do not think this is the sort of case that ought to go to the House of Lords", that might be an end of the matter.
I am not quite sure from the present language whether the intention is that the trial judge should still give his personal consideration to the question of whether it is expedient that there should be "leapfrogging" under paragraph (b), or whether all he has to consider under paragraph (b), in the new language, is
56
whether it is reasonable to let the parties ask the House of Lords: because he might say: "Well. conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied, and if both parties want to apply to the House of Lords, by all means let them apply." I only put that point for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, lest there be any room for doubt. If there is no room for doubt, I am only too happy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no difference between us as to what is intended. If the trial judge thinks it is a case for granting leave, then that is that. It is intended that he shall give a certificate only if he is satisfied that the relevant conditions apply; that all parties consent and that it is expedient that "leapfrogging" should apply and not merely that there should be application for leave to appeal. I should like to consider between now and the Report stage whether there is any doubt—and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, feels that there is some doubt, I feel that there must be. I will consider the wording before the Report stage, and perhaps propose a further Amendment if I think it necessary to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to any Order in Council made under the following provisions of this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient to consider with this Amendment Amendment No. 8. The purpose of both Amendments is to enable alterations to be made by Order in Council in the categories of points of law which must be involved in the trial judge's decision in order to fulfil the relevant conditions. As drafted, the Bill requires the point of law to relate wholly or mainly to the construction of a statutory provision or to be one covered by a previous decision. These provisions were recommended by the Evershed Committee (in paragraph 503 of their Report) as a first experimental step which should be reviewed after a period of three to five years. During the Second Reading debate it was suggested. notably by the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the Bill was

57
drawn too widely and would let in a number of cases which were not suitable to go direct to the House of Lords.
As I have said, this point has since received consideration. We all recognise, I think, that this matter should be experimental. If, as the Government now propose, the Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House is given the final word, that Committee will be able to prevent any unsuitable cases from going direct to your Lordships' House. But experience may show that the categories of points of law in respect of which a leapfrog application can be made have been drawn too widely or too narrowly. It may be found, for example, that the Appeal Committee is being overburdened with applications to leapfrog in cases in which the point of law of general public importance is only a minor issue. It may, on the other hand, be found that the scheme is too restrictive, and that it would be desirable to extend it to points of law on common form contracts of insurance, bills of lading and such like.
In order to make it unnecessary to come back to Parliament for the scheme to be altered, the Amendments enable alterations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 12(3) to be made by Order in Council, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. As these paragraphs merely define the categories of points of law of general public importance which must be involved in the trial judge's decision, it will not he possible for an Order in Council to bring within the scheme decisions which do not involve such points. I beg to move.
LORD WILBERFORCE: May I say a word on this Amendment, because it may have originated, in part, from a suggestion which I took the liberty of forwarding in writing to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor after the Second Reading. Personally, I am greatly obliged to the Lord Chancellor for its acceptance, at any rate in part. The only observation I would make at this stage is this. I wonder whether the power to alter by Order in Council which appears in Amendment No. 8 is not a little too narrowly drawn and whether one might not benefit from making it a little wider. As at present drawn, if noble Lords will look at Amendment No. 8 they will see that all that it does is to enable amend
58
ments to be made in Clause 12(3)(a) and (b), either by amending those or adding fresh clauses: in other words, to tinker about, if I may be allowed to use that expression, with the relevant conditions. That, I think, is very useful.
The only thing I am wondering about is whether it might not be more useful if the power to amend by Order in Council applied to the mechanism for obtaining leave to appeal to the House of Lords, the details of which at present appear in Amendment No. 10. There is a certain amount of detail there that has been introduced since the Second Reading. I should have thought that it fell within the expression "experimental" as used in the Second Reading debate. Experience may show that some of the conditions and regulations there may be worth changing, and it would be simpler to do it by Order in Council rather than by a fresh Act of Parliament. I am not moving any Amendment. I am grateful to the extent to which the Order in Council procedure has been applied, but I just ask whether it might not be still more usefully extended in the direction I have suggested.
LORD DENNING: Some of us were nervous about the width of subsection (3)(a), or, in the earlier part, whether a point of general public importance was involved. If there is power, or if lower can be given, to amend it by Order in Council, I think that may meet the objections which we had before. It is unusual procedure, I believe, to have an Act of Parliament amended by Order in Council in this way, but perhaps in these exceptional circumstances it may be desirable so to do.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just commented on this unusual procedure. It seems to me that it is a very valuable introduction which might be extended to other areas. Everybody knows how difficult it is to get a new Bill through Parliament. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been remarkably successful during his incumbency of his office, and a tremendous amount law reform has taken place for which many of us have been hoping for a long time. If there were some sort of procedure, such as the new procedure which is brought in here, which could make

59
matters more flexible and easy, I think it should be welcomed. I hope that this method will be borne in mind in connection with similar projects.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his suggestion. It is possible, I suppose, that Parliament might have gone further. But Parliament is a little jealous of, in effect, allowing Ministers to alter Acts of Parliament by Orders subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure, and I thought that probably this would be as far as I should be allowed to go. But, encouraged by what your Lordships have said, I should like to think this over again before the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE: Amendment No. 7 is a purely drafting Amendment, put forward in the interests of good grammar. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, after ("and") insert ("which").—(Lord Airedale.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are now in grammatical difficulties again. I must say that when I first looked at this Amendment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was right. But, as we all know, questions of construction and grammar are not all that easy. The Amendment is, I suppose, designed either to improve the clarity of Clause 12(3)(b) or to correct what the proposer regards as a grammatical error in it. It is not justified on either ground. The subject of the verb "was fully considered" in line 26 is "that point of law" in line 19. The relevant conditions are that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance that "that point of law" (a) relates to construction et cetera or (b) is one covered by a previous decision and was fully considered in the previous proceedings. Paragraph (b) is therefore grammatically correct and unambiguous. If the word "which" were inserted before "was fully considered", it would not improve the grammar and it might make the paragraph ambiguous. There might be a doubt which noun was the antecedent of "which"; that is to say, whether it was the point of law which must have been
60
fully considered or the previous decision of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords which must have been fully considered. Therefore, I would suggest that the Amendment is not necessary. The sentence is grammatically correct as it stands, and if you simply put in the word "which" it may itself raise a doubt which is not there as the sentence now stands. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord may be prepared to reconsider this matter.
LORD AIREDALE: I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says. I think the difficulty is simply the way in which the wording is set out on the printed page. If line 26 stopped at the word "proceedings", and the subsequent words started afresh on a new line, that would make the sentence perfectly easy to understand. It is the fact that line 26 does not end at the word "proceedings" but runs on which causes the difficulty here. I hope that perhaps that may be considered before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already addressed your Lordships on Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend subsection (3) of this section by altering, deleting, or substituting one or more new paragraphs for, either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection, or by adding one or more further paragraphs.
( ) Any Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: Before we pass from this important clause on which agreement has now been happily reached between the Law Lords and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on which I heartily congratulate him, I should like to remind the Committee of a great judgment of the Court of Appeal from which this reform springs. It was I given in 1933 in an appeal by the Inland

61
Revenue and is reported under the title Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock in Uncommon Law, which has an introduction by the late Lord Atkin. May I cite a few sentences from that celebrated judgment of the then Master of the Rolls:
"The point appears to be short and simple, but this court does not intend to consider it…Whatever our decision, it is certain that an indignant appeal against it will be directed to the supreme tribunal, the House of Lords, since the resources of the Crown are as inexhaustible as its impudence, and the blood of Mr. Haddock is evidently up".
From a subsequent part of the judgment, I should like to read a few further words:
"At the end of certain hotly contested cases, decided only by a majority in both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, the weary and impoverished litigant, adding up the number of judges who have voted for and against him in the various courts, has found that, per capita, His Majesty's judges were equally divided on the point in dispute. It is not surprising, then, if many appellants present themselves to that House in a reckless or at least a speculative mood, as a gambler who has backed a succession of losers still hopes to recover all by a wild wager on the final race. The Court of Appeal, to one in this mood, must represent a minor handicap taking place at 3.30. It is not desirable that our great tribunals be regarded in this light: but at present it is inevitable."
Later he goes on to foreshadow in essence the reform that is now being made:
"For all these reasons we recommend that either this Court or the House of Lords (as a Court of Appeal) be abolished; or, in the alternative, that the House of Lords retains its appellate functions as a specialist body for the settlement of questions of exceptional difficulty, such cases to be referred to them upon the order of a High Court judge. As for the present case, we decline to discuss it. It will go to the House of Lords in any event, so let it go at once."
As the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill reminds us, this Part of this Bill is derived from the Evershed Committee's Report. The learned editor of the report I have just read, Alan Herbert, was a member of the Evershed Committee and that is no doubt how this reform comes into being. As on many other occasions, "A.P.H." was 35 years in advance of his time.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Leave to appeal to House of Lords

"(1) Where in any proceedings the trial judge grants a certificate under section 12 of this Act, then, at any time within one month from the date on which that certificate is granted or such extended time as in any particular case the House of Lords may allow, any of the parties to the proceedings may make an application to the House of Lords under this section.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, if on such an application it appears to the House of Lords to be expedient to do so, the House may grant leave for an appeal to be brought directly to the House; and where leave is granted under this section—

(a) no appeal from the decision of the trial judge to which the certificate relates shall lie to the Court of Appeal, but

(b) an appeal shall lie from that decision to the House of Lords.

(3) Applications under this section shall be determined without a hearing.

(4) Any order of the House of Lords which provides for applications under this section to be determined by a committee of the House—

(a) shall direct that the Committee shall consist of or include not less than three of the persons designated as Lords of Appeal in accordance with section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and

(b) may direct that the decision of the committee on any such application shall be taken on behalf of the House.

(5) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, no appeal shall lie to the C curt of Appeal from a decision of the trial judge in respect of which a certificate is granted under section 12 of this Act until—

(a) the time within which an application can be made under this section has expired, and

(b) where such an application is made, that application has been determined in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section."

The noble and learned Lord said: This is the new clause which provides for an application to be made to the Appeal Committee for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords where the trial judge has given a leapfrog "certificate. It also ensures that the matter is dealt with cheaply, informally and expeditiously, so as to remove the objections which the Evershed Committee found to applications to the House itself. Subsection (1) provides that where the trial

63
judge has granted a "leapfrog" certificate, either party may, within one month or such extended time as the House of Lords may allow, apply to the House for leave under subsection (2). The period of one month is the same as that prescribed by Standing Order II for applications for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House. It is clearly desirable that some time limit should be laid down so that the parties may know their position. The subsection enables either party to apply for leave, because, although the application would normally be made by the would-be appellant, the other party might also wish to ensure that, in the event of an appeal, the case would go direct to your Lordships' House.
Subsection (2) enables the House, on an application under subsection (1), to grant leave for an appeal to be brought directly to the House if it considers it expedient to do so. The Appeal Committee will thus have a complete discretion to refuse an application in an unsuitable case. Subsection (3) requires applications to be determined without a hearing. An application for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House is not cheap. The parties are always represented, or are usually represented, on the application; it is never decided on the documents alone. The Appeal Committee sit only when Lords of Appeal can be spared from the ordinary judicial business. This means there is a delay, usually of one or two months and sometimes considerably longer, before an application for leave to appeal can be heard. It is essential, therefore, that special arrangements should be made for the hearing of "leapfrog applications. The Bill provides for them to be determined without a hearing. The intention is that the applicant should be required by a Standing Order to lodge only the pleadings and the trial judge's judgment and certificate, with the requisite number of copies. The Appeal Committee would then deal with the application on the documents and its decision would be communicated in due course to the applicants.
Subsection (4) provides for "leapfrog" applications to be determined by a Committee of the House of Lords consisting
64
of three Lords of Appeal, and for the decision of the Committee to be taken on behalf of the House so that the House does not have to meet formally to receive the Committee's reports. This is the procedure followed in the case of applications under Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 for leave to appeal to your Lordships' House in a criminal matter, and the applications would, like an application under that Act, be determined by the Appeal Committee.
Subsection (5) prevents any appeal being brought to the Court of Appeal after the trial judge has granted a "leapfrog" certificate until the time for applying to the Appeal Committee for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords has expired or until any application lodged within that time has been determined. A provision to this effect is necessary because otherwise the unsuccessful party who will have consented to the granting of a "leapfrog" certificate might change his mind and bring his appeal to the Court of Appeal. The successful party might then have to fight appeals in two courts when he would have preferred to go direct to the House of Lords. I beg to move.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: I rise merely to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment. I am afraid that 1 was not able to be here at Second Reading, but had I been here I should have been constrained to join some of your Lordships in voicing alarm at the idea of leaving the matter to the discretion of the trial judge. Judges vary enormously in their approach to matters, and when both parties consent and desire to appeal direct to the House of Lords it may be difficult for the trial judge to avoid granting the certificate; and under the Bill as it then stood the case would automatically not have gone to the Court of Appeal but direct to your Lordships. An important practical question would then arise that your Lordships' House, in its Judicial capacity, might have more cases thrust upon it than it wanted. Indeed, some people might be anxious to adopt this procedure in order, as it were, to "jump the queue of cases set down for hearing in the House of Lords. It seemed to me then, it seems to me now, that by far the best

65
way would be to leave it under the control of your Lordships, provided that that could be done without unnecessary expense. This Amendment fully meets the points that certainly I, and others, had in mind, and I am truly grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD DENNING: I should like to add one word of gratitude to the noble arid learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this Amendment, particularly noticing that not only will the House of Lords keep complete control but also that it can be done most cheaply and expeditiously. In a way it will be following the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States of America because there is to be no hearing: an application will be considered simply on the papers and can be dealt with at once, which will be a great advantage. Furthermore, the House itself can keep control of the number of cases and can see that only suitable cases take advantage of this procedure. This Amendment meets all our wishes, and I am most grateful for it.
LORD CHORLEY: As the only representative present of the law teaching profession, as opposed to those who make the law in the Court of Appeal and in this House, I should like to say a few words about this Amendment. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman (who I am sorry to see is not with us this afternoon), that it was agreed by all lawyers that there is no merit in having two appeal procedures. When he said that I could hardly believe my ears. We are accustomed to having interesting points of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I often find myself in agreement with them but this view was so extreme that I could not believe I had caught his words correctly. However, here it is, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The problem of whether there should be only one appeal is an old one, and one on which there can properly be two views. Right hack at the time of the great Judicature Act for a short time one appeal system was actually established by Act of Parliament, but there was such a strong feeling that it was not satisfactory that within a short time it was reversed, as indeed I pointed out to the noble Lord,
66
Lord Goodman, who rather brushed me aside. Academic lawyers at least of the eminence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, have asked me to make it clear that we attach great importance o the two-tier system of judgments, because it is in that way that the law is effectively and properly made.
The attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, towards this—and it is a proper one—is that a tremendous amount of money is spent in this rather elaborate procedure, and from the point of view of a solicitor who has to advise clients that is a matter which properly ought always to be in his mind. But in the university law schools we are greatly concerned with getting a really well argued series of legal rules, not only so that we can teach them to our students but so that they can be effectively applied in practice in the courts. It is valuable to have a case well argued out in the Court of Appeal and for it then to go through another similar process, because frequently a really strong Court of Appeal may overlook a point which comes out on the second appeal in your Lordships' House. It is true that it is unfair that the expense should have to be borne by the litigant, but getting a first-class system of law is more important than saving a substantial sum of money.
I, and some of my colleagues in the law schools, were worried about certain weaknesses in the proposal in this Bill, which invents what I think we shall agree is a sensible system of ensuring that there shall still be a possibility of a discussion in the Court of Appeal, while at the same time avoiding expense when the case, at the lowest level, is already covered by some decision which is binding on the Court of Appeal and can be overruled only in your Lordships' i4ouse. The weakness in it, as the nob: e and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has pointed out—and it was pointed out on Second Reading—has now been overcome. I am quite sure this solution will be welcomed, not only by the members of the Appellate tribunal here this afternoon but also in the law schools, where, after all, a good deal of law is, in a sense, created in advance of its coming before the judicial tribunals of the country. I felt that I ought to intervene in order to make this matter clear from the point

67
of view of myself and many of my colleagues.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Effect of certificate under s. 12]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
Appeal where leave granted
". In relation to any appeal which lies to the House of Lords by virtue of subsection (2) of section (Leave to appeal to House of Lords) of this Act—

(a) section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 (which provides for the bringing of appeals to the House of Lords by way of petition),

(b) section 5 of that Act (which regulates the composition of the House for the hearing and determination of appeals), and

(c) except in so far as those orders otherwise provide, any orders of the House of Lords made with respect to the matters specified in section 11 of that Act (which relates to the procedure on appeals),

shall have effect as they have effect in relation to appeals under that Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a new clause, substantially the same as Clause 13(2) in the Bill but with modifications necessitated by the proposed new provisions for leave to appeal directly to the House of Lords. Most of it is still the same. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Orders for interim payment]:
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("and")
The noble Viscount said: The Committee may remember that on the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the powers of the Lands Tribunal to order an interim payment in the case of a disputed figure for compensation in compulsory purchase, either the sum itself or one of the subsidiary sums which arises under disturbance or injurious affection. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this was not a matter for his Department but for another one—I think
68
it is probably the Department for which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is the spokesman in this House. The fact remains that the noble and learned Lord is the Minister in charge of making rules for the Lands Tribunal, and if any rules were to be made which were cognate to the ones being made for the High Court and County Courts, under Clause 13, they would be made for the Lands Tribunal by the noble and learned Lord.
Surprisingly enough, the four Amendments down in my name on Clause 19 are meant to deal with the powers to make rules to give interim payments of compensation in these compulsory purchase cases. I think this matter is extremely obscure, and I may have drafted it wrongly, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord sees what I am trying to get at. I do not think there is much I can add to what I said on Second Reading. In the recommendations which led to the provisions in this clause itself in the courts it was made clear that sometimes these things are perfectly plain, that money would have to be paid, but that it takes quite a long time for a final decision to be reached. Exactly the same thing happens in the Lands Tribunal, except that it is almost certain there that money is going to be paid. How much is in dispute but some money will certainly have to be paid. Therefore I should have thought this is a very parallel situation to what the Bill itself covers.
The Lands Tribunal is subject to the same hazards on time as any other court, because a disputed case can go to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. Not until all that is done will a plaintiff know whether or not the full compensation he is claiming is in fact recoverable. Equally, it may take a very long time to get the case on in the first place, and this may not necessarily be solely the fault of the claimant, who may, meanwhile, have lost his property because it has already been taken under a notice of entry. He might find it very difficult to raise the money to go anywhere else. It is perfectly true that he will get interest on the money as from the date when the property was taken, but that does not help him to find the money to move elsewhere meanwhile. Many people who are the unfortunate victims of compulsory purchase would like to do their best to carry on, if they are in business, with the sort

69
of business they were in before. They would like new premises. If they cannot get the money it may be very difficult for them to do so, and this is very likely to increase the compensation payable, because instead of getting the compensation for a fairly simple move from one premises to another, the acquiring authority may have to pay for total extinction of that business, which is a much more expensive matter.
I thought that as we are experimenting under Clause 19 in this field, and as the noble and learned Lord is the person to make the rules, it was worth my while to put down these Amendments to see whether he might consider this as something now worth exploring. There is no necessity to make the rules under this Amendment. It is merely an empowering provision. It may be that if the noble and learned Lord wishes to discuss the matter further with the Minister of Housing and Local Government he will not make the rules yet. But we shall not have another opportunity such as this Bill in a hurry for Parliament to give the noble and learned Lord these powers, and I suggest that we should take it now. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will no doubt agree that it is convenient to take Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17 and 28 altogether. When the noble Viscount raised this matter on Second Reading, I said that this looked more like a planning law than an administration of justice matter, but I said that I would go into it. There is at present no statutory basis for the making of advance payments of compensation for compulsory purchase. In general, compensation is paid when the conveyance of the land has been completed and agreement has been reached on the amount of compensation. Acquiring authorities can, however, make advance payments in appropriate cases. The extent to which local authorities do this is not known; but the Ministry of Transport regularly make advance payments of 90 per cent. of the amount agreed (or found by the District Valuer) in certain circumstances when they are requested to do so by the owner. These are (a), if entry is taken before completion; and (b), if the claimant needs the money to reinstate himself.
70
The question of advance payments of compensation was discussed during the proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill. The noble Viscount will find that discussion in the OFFICAL REPORT of July 8, cols. 730 to 731, and July 29, cols. 133 to 136. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, then moved Amendments which would have required authorities using the general vesting declaration procedure to make a 90 per cent. payment of compensation on or about the date of vesting. This was resisted by the Government on the ground that it should be left to acquiring authorities to exercise their discretion to make advance payments in appropriate cases. This was accepted by the Opposition on a Government undertaking to include a recommendation on advance payments in the circular to local authorities on the Act.
In any case, the noble Viscount's Amendment would deal with the question of advance payments only in cases coming before the Lands Tribunal, and I am told that the arguments against this proposal are as follows. First, it is not right to draw too close an anology between the Lands Tribunal and the courts. Only a minority of compensation cases go to the Lands Tribunal. If there is a case for advance payments in the land compensation field, it would be right to have some general basis far the making of such payments whether or not a case went to the Tribunal. The Government are in fact considering the general question of advance payments in the review of the compensation code to which Housing Ministers have referred on several occasions in the House, both in proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill and subsequently.
Secondly, to deal in isolation with the making of advance payments iii cases going to the Lands Tribunal might have the effect of bringing more cases before the Tribunal. It is wrong to take any measure which needlessly bring; cases before the Tribunal; and this is mother reason for looking at advance payments in compensation cases generally rather than solely in relation to cases before the Tribunal. For these reasons, the proposal to provide for rules to be made about interim payments in cases which go to the Lands Tribunal is, it is suggested, wrong. This does not mean that the Government are opposed to the

71
idea of advance payments in compulsory purchase cases, but only that dealing with cases which go to the Lands Tribunal does not seem to be the right way to tackle the problem. I cannot expect the noble Viscount to take that in in any detail immediately—it is a rather carefully prepared statement. But perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment at this stage and would be good enough to consider what I have said.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think I took in most of what he said, but I should, of course, like to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I am not certain that I understand the distinction apparently being drawn between the cases which do not go to the Tribunal and those which do. The whole point of my argument is that where you have a case where a man must have his money and the acquiring authority is not prepared to make an advance payment—some do not, although equally some do; I shall be dealing with one authority to-morrow that has done so—then the man has no option but to accept. He cannot go to the Tribunal, because he knows that if he does it will be months and possibly years before he gets any money at all. The cases which do not go to the Tribunal are those where the man gets his money straight away. It may be that he does not get the right amount, because he might have got more if he had gone to the statutory body to have his compensation properly determined. Sometimes he has to take less; he has this pressure put upon him. Therefore, I chose the cases which went to the Tribunal because those are the cases which take a long time.
The noble and learned Lord has said, in my experience rightly, that the money is paid on the conveyance. If the amount of compensation is not contested at the Lands Tribunal the conveyance takes place fairly soon, or it should do; therefore, the case for an advance payment is nothing like so necessary. I hope that the noble and learned Lord follows what I am saying. Perhaps he will consider this point also. I am certainly prepared to withdraw this Amendment at the
72
moment. I had temporarily forgotten the discussion which took place about the vesting agreements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. Of course, this is a wider problem than that; this applies to all these cases. I should like an opportunity to study what has been said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are two small points that I want to raise on Clause 19, apart from the one which was the subject of those Amendments, and I shall be grateful for the help of the noble and learned Lord. There has been a little anxiety about the breadth of the powers to make rules under this clause which appear on the face of the Bill, and I think it would be most helpful if the noble and learned Lord could give a little detail about the sort of rules that he envisages may be made. I know it is subject to the Rules Committee; nevertheless I am sure that the Government have an idea upon the subject.
First of all, there are those who think that if you are not careful to make it clear in the rules that these interim payments are going to be made only where liability is not being contested and the dispute is about quantum, you will have the effect of causing confusion if, subsequently, the case goes in favour of the person who has been ordered to make the interim payment. If you go beyond the cases where liability is not being disputed, you may find that the interim payment will have to be paid back again at the end of the day. It may be that some matter of contributory negligence or some other defence is made good, and then the person who thinks that he has got a substantial sum under an interim payment finds that the court orders him to give it all back again. Then what happens? He may not have got it. He may have spent it by then, because it can be paid to him directly under this Bill. Endless difficulties will arise and I should be most interested to know what the rules will contain. I imagine that they will be to provide only for cases where liability is not disputed and where

73
the disagreement is only on a matter of quantum.
The second problem that is envisaged under this clause as I understand it, is that some people may think that if you have a case, even where liability is not disputed and an interim payment is ordered, this may slow up the proceedings because the plaintiff will think, "Good!; I have got some money out of this; there is no need now to press on so urgently with the rest of the claim", and it may fall behind; therefore the whole course of the case will slow up and we shall have even longer delays than, unfortunately, sometimes occur in the law now. It may remove the incentive on the plain tiff's part to get on. I do not know whether this is a matter that can be covered by rules. If there is any force in what is said in this criticism, I can see that it is something that might be serious—at any rate something which should be guarded against. There it is. There are those two points, and if the noble and learned Lord can help on them it would be much appreciated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is intended in the first place that, subject to a qualification that I shall make in a moment, these interim payments should be confined by rules to the sort of cases envisaged by Lord Justice Winn's Committee; namely, in substance cases where the plaintiff is fairly certain to recover, such as where the defendant has admitted full liability. That is simple enough. The second is where he has obtained interlocutory judgments for damages to be assessed. That is simple enough. A third case is where if the action proceeded to trial the plaintiff would be bound to succeed wholly on the issue of liability without any discount for fault on his part or on the part of any person in respect of whose injury or death the plaintiff's claim arises. I apprehend that what that means really is the ordinary case where you have a passenger in a motor car and there is a collision between two motor cars. Nobody alleging any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, is it right that he should have to go on without a penny while the two drivers are fighting it out between themselves as to whether they are both to blame, and if so in what proportion, or only one? That is the sort of case.
74
The only extension which I had in mind was this. The Winn Committee's consideration was limited to personal injury actions, and there may be other cases in which a power to order interim payments would be right. For example, the Law Commission have supported a proposal by one of Her Majesty's Judges that in an action for recovery of possession of land the court should have power to make an order for interim payments in respect of the defendant's use and occupation of the land pending the trial of the action. This deals with an old, known difficulty which is not really fair to the landlords. The defendant may, for instance, have filed a notice contending that a notice to quit served upon him by the plaintiff was invalid and therefore his tenancy has not been properly determined. The action may take a considerable time to come on for trial. In the meantime, it is obvious that, whatever the result of the action, the defendant will be liable to pay to the plaintiff for his use and occupation of the land. Either he has to pay the rent or the mesne profits. A court ought, therefore, to have power to order interim payments to be made by the defendant pending the trial of the action. It may be, too, that in an action for the price of work done the defendant may allege that part of the work was faulty or was not completed, and it is quite clear that if the defendant liable for the price of the remainder of the work the plantiff may suffer hardship if he cannot recover any of his money until the case has been heard.
It was thought right, on the whole, to leave this to rules to be made, but the intention is as I have stated. I agree that nothing would be more unsatisfactory, indeed obviously quite wron3, than to order interim payments to be made in circumstances in which it was not quite apparent that the plaintiff' must succeed, for then somebody might have to pay something back and, as the noble Viscount has said, he might not Lave it. But I have indicated the general intention, and hope that with those observations the noble Viscount will be prepared—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There was my second point, the noble and learned Lord will remember, about what happens if the case dies temporarily upon the payment of the interim amount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I have considered that. It is a question of psychology. But I cannot think that because an injured person who may be entitled to a large amount of damages is getting some interim payment on account, he may be any the less anxious to get the rest of it. I think that is a fallacious argument. I believe that, as a whole, the arguments in favour of this reform are right. I think that where a plaintiff must recover, it is a hardship that at the particular time, just after the accident, when he may most need financial assistance, he should not be able to get it. I do not think there is anything really in the second point which the noble Viscount has raised.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Superannuation benefits in respect of certain judicial offices]:
5.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 16, line 8, leave out (" with respect to ") and insert (" to maintain or increase ")
The noble Lord said: I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading with regard to Clause 26, and I think I understand what is the purpose of the clause. It is to say that when the holders of judicial offices are transferred from one judicial office to another, any pension rights that they may have shall be safeguarded and maintained so that they shall have the transferability of the pensions which apply in so many other fields and which are so much to be desired. My complaint is that the actual wording of the clause is too wide. The Lord Chancellor may make rules "with respect to" the pensions payable. That surely would include power not only to maintain pensions but to abolish them, to reduce them, or to increase them.
I am simply putting forward the view that when the Executive comes to Parliament seeking powers, Parliament ought not to grant powers greater than the actual powers which are required. I am not for a moment suggesting that under this clause any Lord Chancellor would ever wish to reduce or to abolish any judge's pension rights, but as a general
76
principle I simply put forward the view that if the Executive asks for powers greater than it seems to need, then it is the duty of Parliament to amend the Bill so as to reduce the powers to the powers which are in fact needed and sought.
Having said that, I am not too confident that the words that I seek to put in are the right words. I am fairly confident about the word "maintain". I think this is the main purpose, to maintain pension rights. I also included the word "increase". I am not sure whether there might be cases in which it was sought to increase pension rights. If that is not so, I should be very pleased at the next stage to move a similar Amendment leaving out the word "increase". I may have wrongly omitted to put in the word "create", because I think there may be cases in which it would be sought to create pension rights which did not already exist. I am uncertain about this, so I am on rather shaky ground. I am not sure that the words I seek to include are the right words, but I am fairly certain that the words I seek to leave out are too wide and that the words ought to be more limited than they are at the present. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government appreciate the admirable intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in putting down this Amendment, but it would create some difficulties, which are these. The purpose is to secure that the powers conferred by Clause 26 shall never be used to lower anyone's pension. Although this is the last thing that any Government would do, I think it would be difficult for any Government to accept a provision that whatever happens no pension could ever be decreased. In any case, the words proposed do not add anything because a power to make rules "with respect to" something includes a power to make rules "to maintain or increase" it. The contrary, however, is not the case, and the power to make rules merely to maintain or increase superannuation benefits would not really be wide enough to achieve the aim of this clause. The aim of the clause is the creation of an administrative scheme under which service producing actual or contingent pension rights can be accumulated, and thus in certain circumstances to create rights which did not exist before. A power to

77
"maintain or increase" existing rights would not be adequate for this purpose.
As the noble Lord knows, the sole object of this clause is to improve the position in relation to judicial pensions, particularly where at the moment they cannot be aggregated. Certainly no one, if this clause is passed, will be worse off in any circumstances than they are now. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord may be prepared not to put the Amendment to a Division.
LORD AIREDALE: I was not dreaming, in any event, of putting this Amendment to a Division. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. This is a minor drafting Amendment. The purpose is to put it beyond doubt that the powers conferred by Clause 26 will enable the Lord Chancellor to make rules for the transfer of pensions where one of the offices is that of full-time salaried chairman or deputy chairman of quarter sessions, whenever the particular post was created. Such posts are created by local Acts from time to time (for example, by Part II of the Cheshire County Council Act 1968) and it should be clear that the Clause 26 powers extend to them as and when they may be so created. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 28, after ("enactment") insert ("(whether passed before or after this Act)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.46 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 23:
Leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new clause:
Power to maintain or increase Superannuation benefits to or in respect of persons who have been employed in certain judicial offices.
". The Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) may with the consent of the Treasury make rules to maintain or increase the superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of persons who have been employed in two or more of such judicial offices as shall be specified therein."
The noble Lord said: When I was reading Clause 26 I remembered some words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quite a long time ago, early in the present Parliament, when he expressed the hope that we might be able to get the Statutes expressed in language that people could understand. I was not able to see that Clause 26 of this Bill came anywhere near to falling within that desirable objective. Clause 26 takes up very nearly two and a half pages of the General Statute Book. Its object, as we now know, is a very simple one: It is really to safeguard and maintain a very few pension rights of a very few holders of judicial offices.
Just look at Clause 26. First of all, look at the length of it. Look at the way the subsections are grouped together. Subsections (1) and (2) are very much the same. Subsections (2) and (5) are very much the same; they are lists of judicial offices. On Second Reading the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioned these lists and wondered whether they were complete. At first sight they are rather strane lists. They include, for instance, the Recor-der They include for instance the Recorders of Liverpool and Mar, chester, but the Recorder of Birmingham is no tincluded. I have no idea why. I cannot believe that the Recorder of Birmingham has been forgotten: it would be most unlikely. However, I wonder whether possibly some judicial office has been missed, has been left out, because, if it has, and Clause 26 is sought to be implemented in respect of that judicial office, the answer will be that nothing can be done without further legislation. When the Lori Chancellor of the time goes to the Cabinet to ask for Parliamentary time for further legislation for this purpose the answer is pretty certain to be that there are other and more pressing needs for Parliamentary time. I should have thought that if one could eliminate the specific list of judicial offices that would be a desirable thing, That is my criticism of subsections (2) and (5).
If we come to subsections (3) and (6), which are almost identical, I would say that they are almost incomprehensible. Then when one comes to subsection (7) one sees that that relates to the domestic financial affairs of the Cities of Liver

79
pool and Manchester. I should not have thought it really necessary to have a subsection of a General Statute for this. I should have thought the proper place for this was in the next Private Bills to be promoted by these Cities. It could go in under "miscellaneous provisions". Surely in the interim an arrangement could be reached between the cities and the Treasury to tide over the interim period, because we are not discussing anything in the least contentious.
Then one comes to subsection (8), which is a definition subsection. Surely the whole purpose of a definition subsection is that on reading it one should know what the thing means that is being defined. I do not know whether anybody reading subsection (8), which purports to define what is meant by "judicial office remunerated out of central funds", can possibly get a clear idea of its meaning. Could not these pairs of subsections be put together by using the simple device of saying "The Lord Chancellor, or the Secretary of State (as the case may be)…"? Then they could share subsections (1) and (4), (2) and (5) and (3) and (6). That would just about halve the length of Clause 26.
I should like to go a little further. I should have thought that this subject matter was deserving of about five lines of the General Statute Book, and I have sought to draft a clause to replace Clause 26 occupying five lines. I hope that I have succeeded. I dare say that it will be said, and no doubt it has been said, that these provisions must be arrived at by reference to the Superannuation Act and that must lead to all this verbiage. But surely we can try to get away from this mass of verbiage to achieve such a very small and non-contentious purpose. I hope that it will be possible to get rid of Clause 26, with its extraordinary complexities, and to replace it with the new clause, which I venture to suggest is not at all complex and which any ordinary person, reading it, could understand. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think this a worthy purpose. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I am quite prepared to have another look at this matter. I am told that the list which is set out in subsection (2) is much more open-ended
80
than may at first sight appear. The offices in categories (a) to (g) have only one holder each; categories (h) and (i) (that is, chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions and stipendiary magistrates), have more than one and may be increased. These categories are therefore framed so as to be general in their application to posts of this kind. The Government drafting Amendment, at page 16, line 28, is designed to put that beyond doubt.
The Government are satisfied that the clause covers all the categories intended. The only office omitted is that of the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster who was excluded at the request of the Duchy of Lancaster. In that sense the clause is inevitably an interim provision. The Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions may make a report involving far-reaching legislation affecting this or other aspects of judicial administration. The Government cannot, of course, anticipate that Report.
Finally, the powers conferred by Clause 26 have to be carefully knitted into the texture of the enactment relating to superannuation. I do not know why Superannuation Acts always seem to be so extremely complicated, and the object of Clause 26, although it appears in this Bill, is designed to put a new section into the Superannuation Act and therefore it has to fit in with the remainder of that Act. I do not like long and complicated provisions if one can possibly make them shorter and simpler. Therefore, if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, I will certainly have another look at the matter to see whether it is possible to achieve the desired object in a shorter form.
LORD AIREDALE: I am very grateful indeed for that undertaking. I feel that it is almost an insult to the high offices of Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State that Parliament cannot trust implicity the holders of those offices to do the right thing with regard to judges' pensions. After all, they are answerable to Parliament for what they do, and this is only to be done with the consent of the Treasury, whose restraining band will be in evidence. Therefore, surely Parliament could trust any conceivable holder of the office of Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State to do the fair thing by

81
judges' pensions without needing to hedge it about with two and a half pages of the General Statute Book. I am very grateful that this is to be reconsidered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Further provisions as to pension rights and related matters]:
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 18, line 28, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 36 and insert ("(4) (which specifies the offices to which that section applies), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
"(aa) chairman or deputy chairman of a court of quarter sessions where under any enactment (whether passed before or after this Act) a person may qualify for a pension by virtue of service in that office"").
The noble and learned Lord said: If it is convenient to the Committee, I should like to discuss with Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 27. These two minor Amendments are designed to extend Clause 27(2) to cover the Chairman and any Deputy Chairman of Cheshire Quarter Sessions, and at the same time it is necessary to bring the subsection into line with the description of the chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions adopted in Clause 26. Part II of the Cheshire County Council Act 1968 provides that full-time salaried chairman and deputy chairman of the Cheshire Quarter Sessions may he appointed. Any chairman so appointed ought to be covered by Clause 27(2) just like the Kent deputy chairmen, but by inadvertence they were left out of the Bill as introduced. It is therefore desirable to extend the subsection in any case.
But although, if Cheshire were included by name, all existing full-time salaried chairmen and deputy chairmen would be covered, there may be new appointments created by local Acts between now and any legislation which may flow from the Report of the Royal Commission. The best course, therefore, is
82
to make the provision a general one, on the same lines as the new "Section 39A (2)(h)" of the Superannuation Act 1965 created by Clause 26. The Amendment adds to the list of judicial offices set out in Section 3 of the 1967 Act the general category of pensionable chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. The Amendment to Schedule 2 is consequential. The list set out in the 1967 Act already contains certain specific references to particular chairmen and deputy chairmen. The addition of the new general provision makes these particular provisions unnecessary, and they can accordingly be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules 1 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to take with this Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 25 is a paving Amendment to the insertion at the end of line 16, on page 21. As drafted, Schedule 1 to the Bill contains no reference to an enactment affecting Northern Ireland, but it is to be amended by inserting a reference to the Northern Ireland Act 1962. Consequently, the exceptions to the provision in Clause 32(3) that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland must be extended to include Schedule 1. Amendment No. 26 is a drafting Amendment, the object of which is to keep the list of enactments in Section 2(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1962 complete. Section 2(1) specifies the cases in which no appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enactments amended]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dealt with Amendment No. 26 when moving Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, at end insert—

("The Northern Ireland Act 1962 (1962 c. 30).

In section 2(1), after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—

"(j) from a decision granting or refusing a certificate under section 12 of the Administration of Justice (No. 2) Act 1968"").

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained Amendment No. 27 when moving Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 19, at end insert—

("1967 c. 28.

The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967.

In section 3(4, subparagraphs (v), (ix), (xi) and (xii) of paragraph (a), and paragraph (b).")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

THE HIGHWAY CODE
6.2 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the paper entitled The Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before the House on the 30th of October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 44 thereof. The new edition of The Highway Code was announced in the Government's White Paper, Road Safety—A Fresh Approach, last year. The edition of the Code which many of us are now carrying unread in the glove-boxes of our cars was first published in 1959, and a new version is long overdue. Your Lordships will ex
84
pect the new Code to be very different from the last one, and it is. It has been completely revised and re-written. Looking round at the contemporary traffic scene I imagine that most people feel that many of the features which we see have been with us for a considerable time. In fact, a great deal of what we accept as usual has arrived only within the last ten years. There have been changes in the way we use the roads; the recent rules for roundabouts are a good example. Since 1959 traffic engineering techniques have come into their own, and there is hardly any busy town which is without one-way streets, lane lines, direction arrows and the like. Certainly, it is a strange town which has no parking controls, whether by meters or by yellow lines. Three years ago a new system of traffic signs, based on Continental standards, was introduced.
The cars themselves have changed. Semaphore signals now begin to look quaintly old-fashioned, and hand and arm signals are rapidly dying out. We prefer to use direction indicators and keep our hand warm inside the car. We have recently seen new regulations on the standards of safety for tyres and, in particular, on the depth of the tread needed. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has required seat belts to be fitted as from the end of the year on all cars first registered since the beginning of 1965. We also have a new overall speed limit of 70 m.p.h., and we have seen the introduction of lower tailor-made speed limits on stretches of road where the accident record suggests they were needed.
The new Code takes account of all this new material. Since the Code is a basic book of advice and information for all road users, it is right that it should hold as much up-to-date information as possible. Your Lordships will see that the new Code has 150 rules, compared with 94 in the previous Code. Something like one-third of the text and all the illustrations are new material. There was another important reason for rewriting the Code. It was discovered by the Road Research Laboratory that some road users could not properly understand the existing Code. It used too many long words; some of its phrases were so elastic as to mean anything or nothing, and in parts it was so concise that the not-so-bright

85
road users could not possibly follow all the thought that had been packed into it. The present Code therefore tries to spell things out and to explain step by step. Unfortunately, this makes the text very much longer in places, but we think it is clearer and more easily understood. We have also explained technical terms, whenever we cannot avoid them altogether.
The new Code has been prepared by the Ministry of Transport. It takes account of a great many suggestions made over the years by ordinary members of the public, and more recently has benefited greatly from comments made by some 60 outside organisations which were specially invited to give their views. We are very grateful to everyone who helped in this way. There has been some criticism that the new Code is too long overdue, and I would agree with that. The present pace of change in road and traffic conditions means that we need to keep the Code up to date very briskly; probably at least every five years.
There have also been criticisms, particularly in another place, about the way the Code is revised. It has been said that it is not fair to Parliament that there is no opportunity to debate the Code, either in detail or in principle, until an occasion such as this. In particular, amendments suggested by your Lordships or by Members of another place cannot be considered on their merits by the Minister, since the Code cannot be amended while it is being approved. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport agrees that these are justified points, and said last night in another place that when the next version of the Code is produced, possibly within the next two years, he proposes to circulate a draft as a Green Paper so that Parliament may have a chance to discuss the draft and to suggest amendments which the Minister can then consider. The Minister would then, after weighing up all the suggestions, bring a revised version forward for approval. Noble Lords may well have their own views on the procedure for revising the Code, and I should be interested to hear them either this afternoon or, after reflection, later.
Your Lordships will see that the Code is divided into six main sections. They
86
are: "The Road User on Foot", "The Road User on Wheels", "Motorway Driving", "Extra Rules for Cyclists". "The Road User and Animals", and "The Road User and Railway Level Crossings". That is almost the same as the basic pattern of the 1959 Code, except that the level crossing section is entirely new. During the revision it was suggested that the section for drivers should come first, and this was, in fact, fully considered. But even in this motorised age there are more than three times as many pedestrians as theme are people with driving licences—53 million as against 17 million. Forty per cent., or about 35,000 of the people who are killed and seriously injured on the roads each year are pedestrians, and learning to use the roads properly on foot is the first essential task for road safety. The section for pedestrians has therefore been kept first.
The advice for pedestrians in the present Code is sound and well tested. Very little has been basically changed in the new Code, but six rules—Nos. 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 19—are new. Rule 8, which gives advice on how to cross the road from behind a parked vehicle, deals with a serious hazard which accounts for nearly one-quarter of the pedestrians who are killed or seriously injured. I should, too, draw your Lordships' attention, particularly now that we are in winter, to Rule 4, which encourages pedestrians to wear or carry something white or light-coloured or reflective at night. Rule 11, which advises crossing the road near a lighted street lamp if possible, is also new. The point behind Rules 4 and 11 is that the accident risk in darkness is just about double the accident risk in daylight; so road-users should not only try to see more clearly in the dark (this applies particularly, of course, to car drivers) but, as pedestrians, should also try to give other road-users a better chance to see them. Hence the advice about crossing in lighted places or wearing or carrying something white or light-coloured or reflective. Rule 19 is also new. The signals shown here are those which will be used at the Pelican pedestrian crossings which my right honourable friend announced in another place on July 25 last. We hope to see them coming into use in 1969; that is, after this Code has been published.

87
The section for the road-user on wheels has been drastically changed. It is more than twice the size of the equivalent section of the 1959 Code. This reflects the increasing importance of good road behaviour by drivers on our increasingly congested roads, and it reflects, too, the measures which have been taken over the last ten years to improve safety and keep traffic moving. Rule 31 in this section introduces the routine mirror-signal-manœuvre which drivers should use when they are overtaking, turning, slowing down or stopping. It may seem to many of us an obvious little drill. It is, and anyone who has been taught driving properly will of course use it automatically. But there are still many people who do not know it or use it, and we therefore thought it best to put it in the Code.
My right honourable friend the Minister particularly sought the views of outside bodies on two rules in this section. The first of these was Rule 35, which deals with separation distances—that is, of course, the gaps which are left between vehicles travelling on the road. This, as your Lordships know, is very important. There would be far fewer multiple collisons, especially on motorways, if drivers kept safe distances apart. The Minister wished to consider whether the separation distances should be shown in yards for each mile per hour of speed, or one car length for every ten miles per hour, or in some other way. Opinions were evenly divided: but a yard is a standard length and car lengths can vary, so my right honourable; friend concluded that it was better to advise a gap of one yard for each mile per hour of speed as a normal working rule. But your Lordships will notice that the illustration of stopping distances on the back of the Code shows distances in feet and in average car lengths. I hope, therefore, that this will suit both camps—those who can reckon distances in yards and feet without any help and those who need something more actual, like cars on the road, to help them with their reckoning.
Rule 95 was the other rule on which the views of outside bodies were specially sought. Your Lordships will see that the rule says that the flashing of headlamps has the same meaning as sounding the horn—to let another road-user know that you are there. This may be a dis
88
appointment to some. There has been considerable discussion about the advantages of having an approved code of headlamp signals. This is still going on in many places, and different views are, as we know, passionately held. But the general feeling of those that my right honourable friend consulted was against a special code and came down in favour of the proposition that the flashing of headlamps does no more than show other people that you are there. Rule 95 therefore maintains that line.
My Lords, there are other important additions in the section dealing with drivers. They deal with safety for pedestrians. Rule 39, for example, makes clear that the young and the elderly pedestrians are particularly at risk. Rule 41—and this is interesting, I think—picks out a particular current problem of child casualties near parked ice-cream vans. The special investigations made by the Ministry's road safety units show that the children are most often hurt when they have bought their ice-cream and are moving away from the van. They are so interested in the ice-cream that they forget the traffic. Rule 46 explains the significance of the flashing amber signal which drivers will see at the new Pelican crossings.
Rules 88 to 94, dealing with headlamps, are also very important. As I have already mentioned, the accident risk in darkness is almost twice that for daylight. It is therefore essential that drivers should, first, have lights which work and are properly adjusted; and second, should use their lamps sensibly and when they are needed. Rule 92, which insists on the use of headlamps on all roads where there is no street lighting, is in line with new regulations which my right honourable friend has proposed. Rule 91, about using dipped headlamps in built-up areas, is also necessary. Far too many drivers drive on sidelights alone. This is dangerous, because it often means that the drivers cannot see as well as they might, and it gives pedestrians and other drivers a much slimmer chance of correctly judging their speed or how far away they are.
The section on the road-user and railway level crossings is completely new. As your Lordships will see, there are many kinds of railway level crossings in this country and the Code gives advice

89
on how to cope with all of them—crossings with gates or full barriers, open level crossings with or without warning lights and automatic half-barrier level crossings. The advice on automatic half-barriers in Rules 147 to 150 adopts recommendations of the court of inquiry into the accident at Hixon. My right honourable friend has announced that work is going ahead on the design of a new model of automatic half-barrier crossing, and this will include changes in the wording of the notice shown in the illustration on pages 32 and 33. Some other work is going ahead on modifications of existing crossings. For example, box junction markings and double white lines are being introduced. We carefully considered whether the Code should show a new crossing; but to wait for this—for the designer is still at work on the subject—would have held up the introduction of the Code, which many people feel has already been too long in appearing, for at least some months more. In any case, there are 200 crossings of the present design in use daily. On balance, it seemed better to show existing crossings, since this is the situation which drivers have to face, and to get the Code out for the benefit of the millions of drivers who need to use the other advice in it. But my right honourable friend is fully aware of the potential need for amendments and publicity when new-style crossings begin to come into use.
Your Lordships will observe (and, I hope, welcome) a shift in emphasis in the signals given on pages 34 and 35. Direction indicators signals are by far the most normal way of signalling now on the roads: arm signals are subsidiary. The Code therefore shows direction indicator signals and the meaning for them. The section on the law's demands has also been revised and brought up to date. It is not part of the Code proper which your Lordships are asked to approve, but it is traditionally included so that the road-user can see the most important parts of the law which affect him on the road. It is a quick guide for his convenience. If he wants the full story he must, of course, refer to the appropriate Acts and regulations.
My Lords, the new Code will have the same status as the present Code. We shall be maintaining the arrangements for
90
giving free copies of the Code to, for example, learner drivers and children enrolling in the National Cycling Proficiency Scheme. If your Lordships approve the Code to-day and if it is similarly approved in another place we will go ahead with arrangements for bulk printing and distribution. We expect that at least 6 million copies of the new Code will be needed during 1969. Some 10 million of the last edition were sold, and 14 million issued free. The Code must have just about the largest distribution of any publication after the Bible, which is, of course, appropriate, since it is the road-user's "bible". It will not therefore be possible to have the Code on sale for some weeks, but we expect it will be available publicly in the first half of next February.
I now commend the Code to the House. One of our current road safety problems is how to keep up the momentum of the savings we have achieved with the introduction of the breath test. One way we can do this is by studying and learning the Code, and following its advice every time we use the roads. As my right honourable friend's introduction on page 2 says:
"The Code is not theory. It's a mine of practical, down-to-earth advice. It's a pocket life-saver".
I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the code contained in pages 4 to 44 of The Highway Code, laid before the House on the 30th of October last.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
6.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his interesting and lucid discussion of the Code and in particular for the trouble he has taken to draw our attention to some of the most important points in it. I feel that he arid his noble friends on the Front Bench must have heard with some relief of the other place passing the Code last night. I understand that on the first attempt of the Minister of Transport to carry the Order through another place he was "apprehended for careless driving". However, he seems to have learned his lesson, to have conducted the measure 'with all necessary care this time

91
and to have got it safely through. No doubt it will be dealt with in a similar way here tonight; it certainly has a welcome from me.
I should also like to welcome another matter to which the noble Lord has referred; namely, the intention of the Minister again to revise the Code within the next couple of years to bring it into line with the International Convention. May I particularly welcome the new procedure described by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, tonight, by which a Green Paper is to be published which can then be debated in both Houses. This debate will serve as a guide to the Minister and will enable him to take into account the views of both Houses as well as all the other advice he will receive before finally drafting his Order and putting it before the House. I am sure that this is a helpful and wise move and I welcome it.
I should like to congratulate the experts at the Ministry of Transport who have obviously done a tremendous job of work in composing this new Code. I had the privilege of introducing the last one nine years ago, and I can remember the intensity of the preparatory work on that occasion. This time it would appear to be even greater. I think it is worth saying that if everybody obeyed the simple rules in the Code—and they are simple rules; as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said, they are simply common sense—the appalling toll of killed and maimed on the road would end tomorrow. This would certainly be so. If only we could get everybody, drivers and pedestrians, to read and obey the code—and, incidentally, I wonder how the noble Lord is going to get the pedestrians to observe their share of it—this terrible loss of life and limb would be avoided.
Of course, when you are engaged on the re-drafting of the Code—and I can well remember this happening to me ten years ago—because of the urgency felt by the Ministers and their advisers there is a great temptation to put too much into it. I feel that the Ministry of Transport have fallen straight into that temptation. As the noble Lord has told us, this new Code consists of 150 rules compared with the 94 rules in the old one. It is now running to 44 pages of rules and
92
diagrams compared with 25 pages before. This is a very big increase; and if this is going to happen every five or ten years, the Code will be too big to lift much less to read. Inevitably, as each new draft comes out, we shall see the need for a whole mass of new features that we want to cater for, all seeming enormously urgent. I remember on the last redrafting saying that if we put in anything new, we must take out something old; that, somehow, we must try to keep the Code at the same length. We did not succeed; but we did not fail on quite such a massive scale as has happened this time.
The theory is that everybody should read this Code and know it; but, inevitably, however good the content, the longer it gets the less it will be read in the home. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and his advisers in the Ministry of Transport, and indeed to the Minister, that the Ministry really should start to think now on how it can be shortened because otherwise it will become so unwieldy as to defeat our own ends.
My Lords, I have three suggestions to make which might help in this particular field. First, there are some duplications in the rules. I daresay there are not many. I have not combed it through from start to finish but I have picked up a couple and I expect more can be found. For instance, Rule 32 is the same as Rule 111, and Rule 109 is the same as Rule 128. Therefore, one obvious suggestion is to cut out duplication. My second suggestion (and this is perhaps more difficult) is to avoid prolixity. The noble Lord told us that the Road Research Laboratory has found that not everybody can understand the old Code. I expect they will find that not everybody can understand the new one. This will be inevitable. But in trying to make the rules understandable they have made nearly all of them longer; more ideas, good in themselves, have gone into each rule and they have therefore tended to become longer and longer. I think one must exercise extreme self-control in drafting these rules to keep them as short as possible.
My Lords, my third point is a new thought, but it might have some value. In any case, I would suggest that it is worth considering. I would suggest that

93
the rules should be differentiated into advisory and semi-mandatory and mandatory. I have marked a few rules which are obviously advisory. One, for example, is Rule 105, which says:
"Traffic travels faster on motorways than on ordinary roads, and you will need to sum up traffic situations more quickly. Using your mirror and concentrating all the time are doubly important on motorways."
That is sensible advice, but it is advice. Similarly, there is Rule 110 which says:
"Drive at a steady cruising speed within the limits of your vehicle, and do not break the speed limits for the motorways or for your vehicle. On wet or icy roads, or in fog, keep your speed down."
There is also Rule 111, which says:
"Driving for long distances may make you feel sleepy. To help prevent this, make sure there is plenty of fresh air in your vehicle, or stop at a service area, or turn off at an exit, and walk around for a while."
These really are all advisory rules offering very good advice; and any sensible person will follow that advice. Although I would suggest cutting out some of them, I am not suggesting that they all be cut out. Although there is a bit too much good advice here, most of the advisory rules probably should remain. But where they do remain in the Code I suggest that in the next draft they be printed in light or small type while the semi-mandatory and mandatory rules are printed in large and heavy type. The mandatory and semi-mandatory rules must be kept; they are all of immediate importance; they are the ones we want everybody to know. I throw it out as worth considering that we must do something to keep the length of the Code more manageable because I am quite certain that in the next Code, in five or ten years' time, there will be a whole lot of new features; enthusiasts will want to put in more and more and it will become completely unmanageable. I hope the noble Lord and his advisers will give some thought to economy so far as the length is concerned.
My Lords, there are three innovations to which I should like to refer and on which to offer congratulations. First, automatic signals. It has interested me to notice that automatic signals are now to become standard. We had a long debate about this ten years ago, and I thought then that in putting in hand signals we were being a bit old-
94
fashioned. And of course events have proved that we were, and that we should have gone over completely to the automatic signals. Hand signals are anything but standard, and there is often confusion as to what they mean; whereas nowadays pretty well every motor car has automatic signals which are far more visible and eliminate any sort of ambiguity. So I welcome this, and I am sure that it is absolutely right.
Another section to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred is that on roundabouts. This has been very well done and I congratulate the drafters on the way in which it is set out; it is very clear. But I must make a point about roundabouts. I consider them a very inefficient form of dealing with intersections. All American traffic engineers—and they have had more years of experience than we have—would say the same. Roundabouts in towns are a great waste of space and do not facilitate traffic flow. Almost universally in America traffic lights are used as the control at intersections where there is much traffic moving. If there is too much traffic for lights to handle, there is a two-level interchange. I know that these things are very expensive but what happens at a congested roundabout is that these conventions inevitably break down. The roundabout gets full, and there is only one way to get round, if you are not going to sit for an hour watching the traffic going round solid, and that is to push in. That is what everybody does. Then they weave, and we get the various dangers and accidents which come from weaving. So I hope that the penny will drop at the Ministry of Transport. Although this is very good, so far as roundabouts go, they are not really very satisfactory traffic engineering features.
My Lords, the section on railway crossings was referred to very helpfully by the noble Lord who told us of the changes which are in view for the future. I think this is good, but I am also inclined to think that this aspect is getting a little out of perspective. Every one is very worried at the present time about the dangers presented by railway crossings, but in terms of the numbers killed and injured railway crossings are nothing like so dangerous as ordinary road crossings, and therefore this subject should not occupy too much space. I think it

95
might be kept in perspective when the Ministry come to the next draft in two years' time.
One word about the section on lane discipline and overtaking. On this the Code has been expanded from nine rules in the old Code to 20 rules in the new Code. Here let me congratulate the inventor of the little rule, "Mirror—signal—manœuvre". I think this is first-rate and something which everyone can learn: "Donging" it in like that is first-rate, and I give full marks for that. I think it has become a little long, but I am so much in favour of giving more emphasis to lane discipline that I would almost forgive the extra length. In two weeks' time, when we come to discuss the Motion of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I shall have a good deal more to say about lane discipline. It is one of the weakest features of traffic movement in this country, and I am quite certain that we ought to make mandatory offences with regard to weaving and bad lane discipline. On those matters the Code has done its best.
Two short points of criticism, my Lords. One was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom—the complaint of the cyclists. In another place the Minister apologised for failure to consult, and I welcome that. The Cycling Council of Great Britain has taken grave umbrage to Rule 132 compared with Rule 60 in the existing Code. It found Rule 60 acceptable, but in the new drafting there is a change of emphasis about riding in single file. I am bound to say that to my eye it did not seem a very great change, but to the eyes of members of the Council it does. I hope that in the consultations which will take place on the draft for 1970 the noble Lord will see that this point is discussed with the Council. I think it is mainly a question of semantics: I do not think there is much substance in it.
The other point has a little more substance. It concerns Rule 139. The point has been made by the British Horse Society that Rule 138 advises that horsemen riding singly or leading a horse should keep to the left and that a led horse should be on the inside. This is accepted by the Society; but Rule 139 advises that where a horse is being led by a pedestrian the horse should not be
96
led on the left of the road but on the right with the pedestrian on the outside of the horse—in other words, facing the traffic. The British Horse Society oppose this view. They consider the Minister has made a mistake and advance three reasons.
First, they think it confusing that some horses should be found on one side of the road and some on the other; and there, I think, they have a point. The second reason is that whether or not there is a footpath does not affect horses or ponies, since they must always go on the road. The third reason is that road users—that is to say, car drivers—should get used to expecting to find horses and ponies always on the same side of the road namely, the left hand side. They think that traffic coming at a horse will startle it more than traffic coming up behind the animal. I suggest that perhaps the Minister should consult the British Horse Society when making his re-draft for two years' time to see where the right balance lies. I think there must be a point about always having horses on the same side of the road. This would seem a point of safety for everybody. With those few comments, my Lords, I wish to welcome the Code and most earnestly hope that it will succeed in the objective of reducing the very serious loss of life and limb.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, this evening we are being asked to approve this Code of Practice for the use of the roads. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, there is probably no other book which affects so many of us in such a large way—or, if it does not, it certainly should do. I think that we must welcome any help that we are given to understand the increasingly complex business of using the roads, either with or without a vehicle. But I find myself echoing the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, about the size of the present draft. To-day the matter is more complex, and I think we might look back to the early days when driving tests were first introduced. At that time, perhaps, the major portion of the test was an inquiry into the proficiency of a person in controlling a piece of machinery. With modern mechanics and road legislation the ability to control a piece of

97
machinery is a minor part of the test. So much more important now is knowledge of the law and the requirements from persons who use the roads.
This new edition of The Highway Code—and I should like to add my congratulations to those who produced it—is a great improvement on previous editions; although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that its length and complexity will probably mean that it will, to a great extent, defeat its object, in that the Code will not be read fully and learnt in its entirety. Although under the present procedure, which I am happy to hear is to be changed with the next draft, we are unable to make any amendments, I should like to add a few observations on some of the rules in this draft. They are by no means complete, and I am sure that other points will be picked up by noble Lords yet to speak.
Rule 19: one sign for pedestrian crossings has a red man and says, "Wait"; another has a green man and says, "Cross with care", and means, "You may go"; then we have a peculiar flashing green man which also means to wait. Why cannot we stick to the red one?
Rule 28: I am pleased to see that we are moving back to the standard wording which appeared in previous editions of The Highway Code, but which does not appear in the current edition. The present version is that when you move off into the traffic stream, you must do so "when it is safe to do so". The new draft goes back to the older wording, which was that you must move off in such a way that you do not cause other road traffic to change direction or speed. Admirable though this is, I think that it produces a difficult situation for bus drivers coming out from a bus stop. If traffic is heavy, they cannot possibly come out according to the rule. We all know what they do now. They are driven to do it. They just put on their flashers and come out regardless. I do not know whether we are right in allowing one class of road-users to do something which is considered highly reprehensible in others, but it seems to me that it is putting bus drivers coming out from a bus stop at a considerable disadvantage.
Rule 41: since Parliament allowed ice cream vans to play musical chimes to attract children (I think I am right in
98
saying that they are the only people who are allowed to do this sort of thing by way of trade) it means that they are a potential hazard, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterhottom, has said, because of children crossing the road while intent on eating their ice cream. I think the noble Lord will agree that there is something wrong about the picture and the text. The text speaks of "behind a vehicle" and the picture shows a child coming out from in front of a vehicle.
Rule 46 now explains those amber flashing lights which used to figure on what I think I am right in saying are now the defunct Panda crossings. We had them for some considerable time but with no details in the then current Highway Code of what on earth all this meant. Now there is a new type of crossing. I did not catch what the noble Lord called it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Pelican.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: I thank the noble Lord very much. This Pelican crossing figures in The Highway Code together with an explanation of what these flashing lights mean.
On Rule 56, I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about lane discipline. Possibly there is no other activity on the road that causes more frustration and Possibly more accidents than weaving from lane to lane. Perhaps we could emphasise this point more strongly in future editions by using heavier print.
Rule 61 deals with getting into the correct lane. We tend to put down beautiful painted arrows on the load, indicating which line you have to get into to turn right or left or to go ahead; but if the traffic is dense and you happen to be a stranger in the area, the arrows are covered up by ether traffic and you cannot see them until it is too late. It would be more helpful, as is done in many cases, to have a sign saying that there are arrows ahead.
I come to Rule 81. Some years ago, speaking in a similar debate in your Lordships' House, I pleaded strongly that where there is a constriction on traffic, it is more sensible to apply the rule that the traffic in the constriction has the right to get out before, you

99
pile more in—in other words, traffic on the circle has the right of way. I do not claim any credit for its being in The Highway Code, but I think it is a wonderful coincidence and I am pleased to see that traffic on the circle has the right of way. Again echoing a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in that same debate I referred to roundabouts as "charming old relics".
In Rule 95 we have at last an authoritative statement on flashing headlights. It variously means, as at present used, "Come on; I am waiting", or "Look out; I am coming". Of course, if you misinterpret a signal that leads to disaster. Again may I suggest heavy print for that to rub it in.
On the question of signals, I am pleased to see that mechanical or electrical indicators are to take precedence over the old hand signals—though, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, I would say that the hand should be on the driving wheel driving the car and not just inside the car keeping warm. There is one signal, however, which I should like to think might be considered—it probably has been, but perhaps we could have a little assurance on this. There is only the ordinary slow-down or stopping signal for use when you stop to give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing. Unfortunately pedestrian crossings are often at points where there is a right turn and some drivers—often drivers of large and visually obstructive vehicles—signal that they are slowing down for pedestrians by pulling out towards the middle of the road and giving a turn-right signal.
There is nothing more dangerous, because that implies that it is probably safe to come up on the inside. It does not, of course, mean that, but it is often taken to mean that; and if the vehicle stopping is a large and obstructive one, it is often too late for a following car to stop for the pedestrians crossing. I know that The Highway Code also says that you should not overtake at a pedestrian crossing, but this does happen. I wonder if there is any possibility of some form of hand signal to fill what is obviously a gap, so that people do not give the right-turn signal when they mean that they are giving way for pedestrians.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I ask a question, for clarification? The noble Earl referred to either the inside or outside lane. On which part of the road is this lorry making the wrong signal?
THE EARL OF SHANNON: To clarify that to my noble kinsman, I would point out that what I said was that very often zebra crossings are at places where there is a turning right, anyway, and the large, obstructive vehicle is often in the inside lane, when it ought to be in the outside lane or more towards the middle of the road. And then comes a turning right signal.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Which is the outside lane?
THE EARL OF SHANNON: The outside lane is the lane which is not the nearside lane.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: The outside lane is the right-hand lane.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: I should like to make the suggestion that there should be some signals specifically for that purpose. There seems to be a requirement for it; otherwise people would not give these turning right signals when they really mean they are giving way to pedestrians.
I should like to see Rule 26 in heavy print:
"If you are giving hand signals, please give the correct signals."
So many people tend to have their own variations. I think I am right in saying that in the first edition of The Highway Code some ingenious authors or author produced a little skit on it which was known as: You Have Been Warned. It gave examples in the same style—not the signs that one should give, but the signs that are given. If your Lordships look back at that now, you will be surprised to find that all the signals given to-day were in that book, published some thirty years ago. The usual hand signal for, "I am turning right", is with the index finger, not with the palm extended. Very often the driver goes one better than that, and the index finger is waggled in a sort of admonitory fashion at other drivers. Often one does not know what it means. If I remember rightly, the funny little book that I have

101
mentioned referred to the index finger sign as a sign saying, "That is the house where cook's mother lives"; and the one with the admonitory wagging of the finger as, "I am shaking the ash off my cigarette". I should like to see in heavy black print: "Please give the correct signals as shown, and not your own variations".
I now come to the subject of traffic signs. Surely, we have far too many. Then, having waded through pages of them, we are told at the bottom of page 43 that these are only a few examples and there may be many more variations of them. These new signs are much more logical than the old ones. We have lost the old torch—the torch of learning—which represented the school, and we now have the picture of children. This is much better. These signs again tend to follow a logical sequence. If you have not actually seen that one before, it is possible to work it out. But unfortunately you then come to what might be called the irregular verbs among them. If you see a picture of a pedestrian, it means that you are likely to meet a pedestrian. If you see a picture of a pedestrian with a line through him, it means that there are no pedestrians. But then you see a picture of a motor car, and that should mean "Motor cars only"; and a picture of a motor car with a line through it should mean "No motor cars". But it does not. The picture of a motor car without a line through it means no motor cars. That is not very logical.
Another small point is this. Is it necessary to have direction signs in anything up to about three or four different colours, depending on what sort of road you are on? There may be some good point in this, but I find it a little difficult to follow. Then there is the matter of the height of these signs. I do not know whether the Ministry have considered this point—I know that it does not actually come in The Highway Code—but many of our signs seem to be put up at the right height for horse-drawn vehicles of a bygone age. In many small motor cars nowadays you cannot see these signs. You have to crane up, if there happened to have been a heavy lorry in front of you so that you could not see it further back. I suggest that we put our signs a little too high for most modern cars.
102
There now comes the point as to who puts up these warning signs. The classic example to-day is the triangular sign with a chap with a shovel shovelling earth, meaning that there are roadworks ahead. Pretty nearly every contractor who does anything near the roads now has these signs, and he just puts them up. All too often he puts them right across the job, and you come to the job as you are turning the corner and before you can see the sign. This is understandable, because very often if he puts the sign too far away somebody will forget it is there, and it may well be left there for weeks when the corn ractor has gone away. Contractors also make use of the "Keep left" sign or the "Keep right" sign, but unfortunately they usually seem to put up "Keep left" where it should be "Keep right"; also they often put the signs in places where it is physically impossible to comply with them. So often one sees "Keep left" signs where, if one did keep left, one would go straight across the pavement and into the chemist's shop. I think there should be some control of whoever puts up these signs, to make sure that they are taken away again. I am sorry to sound so critical on this subject. I think that, on the whole, The Highway Code, as produced, is a little long and complex—and it is 1ong and complex because it is about an increasingly complex subject—but, in spite of its little deficiencies, I think we should give it a wholehearted welcome.
6.57 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, of any excuse for speaking on this Order is needed, the Report of the Special Orders Committee is sufficient to justify a few words. The facts are, of course, crystal clear. The first, as both the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, pointed out, is that I. new edition of The Highway Code is overdue; and the second is that the Government have chosen to put the draft before Parliament under this procedure. How I wish, with other noble Lords, that this one had had its Green Paper. With all its imperfections, it must go forward unless the Government withdraw it, which at one time I thought they should. But my view is to some extent modified by what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said: how he appreciated that

103
a measure of improvement is well within reach, and perhaps it might be possible to have a second edition even under this format.
It is obvious that endless care and trouble have been taken over this work, and the Ministry of Transport are to be congratulated upon it. But it is pardonable to suggest that perhaps a wider area of consultation would have resulted in a booklet with (shall I say?) fewer imperfections, although they are imperfections of detail. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made the point about mandatory rules and advisory statements. But the adjourned debate in another place, and probably to-day's debate here, will be of service.
The importance of The Highway Code upon road traffic and road safety problems cannot be overrated. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the road safety problem and the accidents that arise on the roads as an appalling toll. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will accept that any criticism offered by us here is intended to be constructive. The Code's imperfections may be of detail, but the details are important. A number of them have already been referred to by speakers, and others doubtless will be referred to. One of them was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. It concerned the child running out from "behind" a vehicle. I am sure that the right words would have been "the blind side of the vehicle".
Take the photograph on page 20, in which I am particularly interested because I drove yesterday for some 340 miles, more than 100 in mist or fog, on the A.1 and roads further North. I believe that this illustration is not a particularly good one. Had the lorry got sidelights only? If it had, as it might easily have had, judging by what I saw yesterday, then they are invisible. A caption might improve it. I do not think I saw any instance of rank bad driving yesterday—perhaps only the most intrepid were on the road—but I was surprised by the number of heavy vehicles, particularly, that were being driven on sidelights only. I was also struck by the way in which, in middling light, the drivers of heavy vehicles were inclined to flash headlights at one if one was driving with dipped
104
headlights and they felt that sidelights would do. I rather wish they would not, but that will come with time.
Another point which has already been mentioned is this question of the "outside" lane. It is most clearly set out in paragraph 114. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in his exchanges with the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, pointed out that "outside" might easily be altered to "offside", especially when referring to motorway driving. These and other points of criticism have been, and will be, developed and so I will go no further with detail. But the message, as I see it, is this. What a pity this handbook was not more widely discussed before its preparation had gone as far as it has gone. It is, of course, an absolutely essential handbook for the experienced, and it is complicated. But the fact is—and it struck me yesterday driving down the A.1 as it is to-day. and realising the enormous improvements that have taken place in the last two or three years—that driving is more complicated and it is inevitable that a fully comprehensive booklet of this kind will have to be lengthier than the old one, although I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, that there are here and there duplications which could be avoided.
The people of whom I think particularly are the learner drivers—and there are thousands on the waiting lists of the driving schools now—and the people who are addressing themselves to the problem of driving a mechanical projectile upon our roads. It really is a formidable book as it is at the moment, and I think of the remarks of one very experienced driver whom I know. Indeed, it is his profession to drive and he has teenage sons, one of whom has already taken his test and the other is a learner driver. His comments tempt me to suggest that if the Code goes through like this it could well be supplemented by a primer for the absolute beginner. It could be much briefer. So much of what is in this Code is hardly comprehensible to someone who has never driven. This is the point my friend made to me. It is all very well for all of us who are drivers to get the picture from the rules as they are worded to-day, but young people who have never driven find it difficult. It is possible that a shorter. cheaper handbook

105
would be useful. It could be shorter by omitting the sections on pedestrians and motorway driving, for, after all, a learner driver is not allowed on a motorway. Perhaps the same applies to the level crossing sections if the signals are to be altered. These parts could be cut out in order to make a more comprehensible handbook for absolute beginners, so that when they are taking their lessons and coming up to the test they can grasp the full contents of The Highway Code.
For instance, I have mentioned the traffic signs and the road markings on pages 41, 42 and 43. They are extremely elaborate to memorise if one has never driven. I wonder whether such a primer could contain only basic signs, and perhaps only the very basic road markings. I should be interested to see whether the noble Lord considers my suggestion worth thinking over, and what would be the reaction of the Association of Motor Schools to such a suggestion. I feel it is a pity that the price of this booklet has to be as high as ls. 3d; t but, after all, ls. 3d. to-day is not worth much more than 6d. was in 1959. So, provided that adequate supplies are available without charge to all the officials (I think the noble Lord said that a large number are sent out) then I do not believe we can boggle at the price.
My Lords, those are my comments on pages 4 to 44. Perhaps it will not be going too wide if we turn to the following pages, because they are part of the book, although they are not covered by the Motion. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to say one or two short words about them. On pages 45 to 51, concerning drivers' responsibilities, I should like to develop the fact which is brought out in one of the rules: "Go slowly when driving past animals". That is Rule 49. I should have liked to see it say: "Go slowly when driving past or meeting animals". I should have liked to see these pages at the end of the book emphasise the fact that there is a big measure of responsibility upon drivers to be sensible with people who have animals. It is terrible to see how some people whizz past young riders on restive young racehorses and the like.
I believe it would be worth emphasising in these pages that a motorist really must be sensible. As a dog lover and
106
a shooting man, I think it is terrifying how some motorists will drive at considerable speed past a party of shooters, who provide sufficient indication to the driver that there are bound to be dogs about. How that point can be embodied in these pages I do not know, but certainly in regard to horses the matter would be worth including. I say this on behalf of another noble Lord who expressed regret that he could not be here now. He asked me to make that point about the obligation on the driver when passing or meeting animals. Another suggestion he made is this. Although riders are not covered by The Highway Code, it might be worth reminding them that there are occasions when riding in poor light in the dark a horseman should carry—many do—a torch or some kind of light to indicate that he is on the road.
I end, my Lords, as I began, by regretting the procedure by which this important Code has been submitted without drawing on the resources of experience and judgment which exist in Parliament. But. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said, and I look forward to the debates which may follow, and indeed to the occasion when we come to debate road safety in a fortnight's time. There may well be other points brought out which could be embodied in a future edition of this booklet. But we must face the fact, as I said, that there is no practical alternative but that the House should let the Code go through as it stands, with the fervent hope that some of the points which have been dwelt on, both here and in another place, will before long be embodied in another edition.
THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him whether he is not in a little confusion on the question of the offside and nearside of lanes? It is all right to say "offside" and "nearside" on one and two lane roads, but it is not right to confuse the issue in that way when there are three-lane roads, when you must have "inside", "outside" and "centre", because if you merely say "offside" and you happen to be in the inside lane there will be two off-side lanes, and if you happen to be in the centre lane there will be only one offside.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his inquiry. What I said was in fact based on the result of questions that I have put to a number of people, in all walks of life. I have said to them, "In a three-lane, two-way highway, which is the outside lane?" and almost invariably the reply has been, "The one next to the pavement". This is the confusion to which I was referring, and that is why I did not say the "fast lane". From my own inquiries the position seemed to me to be a little odd, and is an indication of the complexity of some of these apparently simple problems, which can only be threshed out and a decision made one way or the other. I do not know which is right.
7.12 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, in case any of your Lordships has the original list of speakers I hope it will not be thought that I am intervening in the wrong place. It was a pure accident that my name was left off the list. I had put my name down and I was told that I should come here. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I agree with everything that has been said so far about The Highway Code, as to its great improvement on the current one, but I also agree that it is really rather a voluminous thing for a young learner driver to have to learn by heart. I think the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, that we should differentiate between the mandatory and the advisory rules, is an extremely good one. The mandatory rules should be put in one section by themselves, and the advisory ones could come afterwards.
I want to deal with just a few things in the Code itself which I feel could do with improvement in a future edition. In the first place, on page 6 there is reference to the X-ways or pedestrian signal-controlled crossings, as they are called. I must confess that I wish the Ministry of Transport did not pay so much attention to the Road Research Laboratory, because I feel sure that it was from there that the extraordinary idea originated of substituting a white cross for the green light with which we are all familiar. When that signal was first introduced it had no publicity whatsoever. I had to search for a long time before I found the official pamphlet
108
on it. The Post Office did not have it, and I cannot remember where I eventually ran it to earth. But what was the idea of substituting this white cross for a green light? I can only say that on one occasion I saw a car pulled up in front of the white cross because the driver thought it meant that he must not go on. There was a queue of cars behind him, the drivers of which, needless to say, were all hooting furiously. I hear that the white cross is now to be superseded by the green light, and that is a great improvement.
As to pedestrians generally, I think that what has been said already about the necessity for pedestrians to carry either some light-coloured or reflecting articles on them when walking on roads at night is absolutely right. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who suggested that, and I think it should be made mandatory.
I have recently been reading a most interesting book on railway accidents. It is an analysis of railway accidents from 1840 onwards, and shows just what we learned from each one and what improvements were made as a result. But one of the things that struck me was the fact that when a railway inspector said that the only way to prevent a certain accident was to introduce a particular mechanism, it was Practically always not less than nine years before the Government made that mechanism mandatory. I only hope that it will not be nine years before the Government decide to make it compulsory for road users on unlit roads to wear something reflective.
Turning to page 8, paragraph 33, I see that it says:
"Remember that there is a 30 m.p.h. speed limit where there are street lights, unless signs show otherwise."
I think it is high time that we dissociated speed limits from street lights. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. Sometimes there may be a 40 m.p.h. speed limit where there is street lighting, and in other places there may be a 30 m.p.h. limit where there is no street lighting. It seems to me that the only hope is to rely purely on the speed limit signs, and if the limit continues for a fairly long section of road it should invariably be marked with small repeater signs, as is done in some places at the moment.

109
On page 11, paragraph 50 says:
"White lines on the road guide, warn, or give orders."
Then paragraph 57 says:
"When coming to junctions, obey any lane indication arrows marked on the road."
To deal with the first, perhaps we may turn for a moment to page 42, where the illustrations of those white lines are given. Some of these are mandatory; some are warning, some are merely for information. But they are not put in order. The first two are mandatory; the third is merely advisory; the fourth and the fifth are advisory; presumably, the sixth is a warning one—warning of a hazard ahead. What kind of a hazard? We have just heard about the ice cream van being an extreme hazard. The ice cream van does not stay still; it moves about, and one cannot move the road lines with it. Therefore it does not seem to me that this warning line of a hazard ahead can mean anything other than, probably, that there is a road junction in front of you, or a sharp bend. I think these signs should be grouped absolutely logically as mandatory, warning and advisory.
Compare paragraph 57 with the illustration just overleaf. It says
"When coming to junctions, obey any lane indication arrow marked on the road."
You will see that in the right-hand lane there is an arrow pointing to the right. Apparently you must obey that, and whatever happens if you are in that lane you must turn right. On the other hand, paragraph 61 says:
"…choose the left-hand lane when going to the left and the right-hand lane when going to the right; choose any lane when going straight on."
Therefore it seems to me that the arrow in the right-hand lane should be a double-headed one, as is the one in the left-hand lane.
I turn to paragraph 60 and other paragraphs dealing with this matter of inside and outside lanes. My attention was first drawn to this by my noble friend Lord Cork—I had not actually thought of it before. While to an experienced motorist the inside certainly does mean the left and the outside the right, to a learner driver that may not be so. If you have a dual carriageway with a reserve in the middle, obviously to him the inside lanes are going to be the ones on either side of the reserve, unless he has an extremely
110
competent instructor who has toll him otherwise; and that is not, I regret to say, always the case. Therefore, it seems to me that throughout this Code it would be simpler to say "left-hand" or "right-hand" and not "inside" and "outside".
I turn to page 13, paragraph 53, on overtaking. I agree with what has been said by other noble Lords, that overtaking is probably the most dangerous thing one can do on the road. For this reason think that something a little more emphatic than what has been put n this paragraph should be given to the learner-driver. I believe that the instruction should be put in heavy print, so that the learner-driver may realise that when overtaking he does so at his own risk, and, what is more, that if he does it wrongly he is probably going to risk other people as well. On page 25, paragraph 113 (which deals with motorway driving) says:
"On a two-lane carriageway, drive in the left-hand lane except when overtaking."
But suppose the left-hand lane is occupied by a good deal of relatively slow-moving traffic, say 45 to 50 m.p.h., and you want to go at 60 to 65. It is quite wrong that you should keep dodging back every time you pass a vehicle into the inside lane and dodging out again. There is nothing more dangerous than dodging about from lane to lane. Therefore, if you feel you are going to be able to keep at a fairly high speed I think most certainly, you should stick to the fast lane, and therefore I think that paragraph is a mistake.
I turn to page 28 and the illustration. This shows an arrow indicating the lane. Quite frankly, I was completely puzzled by the arrow in the right-hand lane, I did not know whether it was inter ded to point downwards to the lane underneath it or whether it was pointing to the middle lane. I took this point, incidentally, to the Institute of Advanced Motorists and consulted the Director of Tests there, and he assured me that it was pointing to the middle lane, which is of course quite right, and slowing the lane you should be in. But I do not think that anybody going Inn the motorway for the first time world be aware of that. I think there should be something a little clearer than that, some signal implying, "Do not use the overtaking lane"; or perhaps "No overtaking" would be enough.

111
I turn to page 33, the level crossing sign. You will see in the illustration there a small sign:
"In emergency or before crossing…phone signalman,"
And there is another small sign right over on the right-hand side of the road. Not many motorists have eyes which look in two directions at once, I am thankful to say. Therefore, I think that if there are to be two instructions one should be underneath the other, and both on the same side. Personally I think that instead of that notice:
"Another train is coming if lights continue to flash",
it would be better to have an electrically controlled signal which comes on if they continue to flash and says, "Stop", because anybody can recognise that at once.
Now I am looking at the signals illustrated on page 35. One is:
"I intend to move in to the left or turn left."
The signal that is given there is the vertical one, whereas in actual fact it ought to be a horizontal one: that is the recognised signal. The next one is:
"I intend to slow down or stop."
This was raised by the noble Earl Lord Shannon, but he left out one point which I feel should be considered by the Ministry. I think it is a great pity that we have abolished the old sign for "I am coming to a stop"—namely, holding the hand straight up. There could he a mechanical equivalent of that; say, three vertical red lights on the rear of your car which could be controlled from a push-button. I can remember quite well an occasion on which a signal was given by the driver of a car which I thought was just slowing up. There was a lot of traffic, so I could not see what was happening in front. I pulled in behind him; there was not room to overtake. Much to my amazement, within a second or two the door opened and out he got. Well, there I was, and I had to wait until there was room to back a little and then pass him. So it seems to me that a mechanical signal would be a great advantage. There is a great difference between slowing down and stopping. If one sees somebody giving that time before I found the official pamphlet
112
meant, one is rather inclined to overtake him regardless.
Turning to page 37, your Lordships will see that the fourth row of signs is: "All motor vehicles prohibited", "Buses and Coaches prohibited", "Lorries prohibited", and one prohibiting cycles. As everything else that is prohibited has through it a cancelling stroke, surely these should have the same. They should all have a red stroke through them. One last criticism relates to the last sign on that page: "One Way". It would be safer for both pedestrians and motorists if one way streets were indicated when you enter them and on every lamp-post along them. While one gets periodic indications of the fact that one is in a one way street, it is seldom that one realises it until one sees traffic going over to the right. An improvement might be made in that respect.
Those are all merely details of signs. Most certainly one has to remember that this is much more a book for the beginner in driving than for the experienced motorist. Therefore I think that the language which is used should be as simple and as brief as possible. The application form for a first licence says, "Have you read the Highway Code?". You may have read only one or two pages of it, but you will still say, "Yes". That is not enough. On your driving test you should be asked quite a number of questions in relation to various parts of it, to see whether you have really studied it. But, apart from that, I think that this Code is a great improvement on the one which we have at present.
7.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, all the noble Lords who have already spoken have accepted the rightness and properness of the new draft Code, and I shall be no exception. However, like other speakers I find that it is a large bulk of reading. I looked up the definition of "Code". It is:
"A systematic collection or a digest of the laws of the country or those relating to a subject."
I honestly cannot feel that this booklet is either of those things. It is not a complete collection of laws and rules and regulations; neither is it a digest. I think that its very size will deter all but the most keen. In my view the Code

113
should have been prepared as a digest containing the bare principles of good road conduct. Such a digest may have been more acceptable to all road-users. They may have read it and also they may have learned it. The learning of the bare essentials is important.
As a suggestion to counter that criticism, I think that the various sections contained in the Code could have been written quite separately, enlarged and put into quite good detail. In this manner a far wider distribution would probably have been effected, at far less cost. One envisages school children having their first introduction to road sense from the pedestrian section, which could probably have been produced in pamphlet form at a cost element of 2d. or 3d. In this way the various associations would have been more prepared to make a free distribution. Then, little by little, we could have moved on from school children, studying as pedestrians, to bicycling and so on. I think that the format lacks any kind of urgency. If your Lordships will look at Rule 102, which deals with the advance red warning triangle, you will see that it commences with the words, "If you carry an advance warning sign". There is no urgency whatsoever in that kind of message. This is repeated several times in phrases such as, "If you have a breakdown", and, "If you have to stop". I emphasise "If you have to". There should be some more positive direction. If we are to have red warning signs of the triangle type to prevent accidents, then there should be some element of compulsion in the way the rule is written.
I want to be brief on the rules. I do not like Rule 95 at all. Twenty years ago I was driving trucks for a living, and we had a quite simple light code. This has been in use for years, and suddenly there is a change from what has been a reasonably accepted practice and one which, so far as I am aware, has not contributed greatly to dangerous driving but to understanding of sensible road use by sensible road-users. It should not be changed overnight; or at any rate in only three months' time. In the section on motorway driving there is a description of lanes. We have already heard a great deal in regard to the confusion that is caused as to "who means what?" by "inside", "offside" and so
114
on. Why cannot we be plain and simple and have "left" and "right"—always "left" or "right"—and "centre"? When we get to American standards and have six lanes in one direction on a carriageway, then we shall have to think up some new descriptions. In the meantime, I should have thought that just "left" and "right" would have been quite adequate.
If I may comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in connection with the lane arrows, I have always understood that the arrow means that you will turn in that direction. He described the picture in the draft Code booklet as showing an arrow that indicates a turning to the right. This direction sign not only is a vital safety factor but keeps all traffic moving. If by chance you get in the wrong lane, then I am sorry for you; you must go on—you cannot afford to change direction. That is where the mistakes occur. It is not the fault of a weaver on a motorway, but the fault of the man who causes the weaving. Lane discipline is, I think, most underplayed and underrated all through. I am sorry about that.
Taking the booklet as it is, I would comment perhaps adversely on the last section. It does not strictly come into the subject under debate, but with the permission of your Lordships I would say a few words on it. That is the section dealing with "The Law's Demands". A fortnight ago, after a very late debate in your Lordships' House, I drove back to Southampton and passed, and was passed by, very little traffic. Your Lordships will probably recall the occasion when we debated the reform of this House. We were all very late, and there was very little traffic at half-past one in the morning, but 19 vehicles that passed me or were passed by me, or approached me, had inadequate lighting; one sidelight, one tail light, no middle light, or perhaps just one middle light on a truck which made one think that it was a motorcycle. I am sorry to see this section of the booklet tucked away more or less as an afterthought.
I have tried very briefly to illustrate this lack of urgency that I see in the booklet. Admirable though it is to serve to-day's purpose, I think it could do so very much better if it had more punch, more drive, and far more urgency. I

115
hope that for the future we can adopt the suggestion that I have made, or that which has been made by other noble Lords in a similar vein, for a primer or an elementary pamphlet or something of that nature. It could be quite short, quite concise. With great respect to road users of all kinds, I think it ought to be pictorial rather than written, because it seems to me that those newspapers which catch the eye have all the pictures on the front page, and that people learn by pictures and not by reading the editorials inside.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to define the truck driver's signal to which he referred, that is, the double flashed headlight to show that the over-taking vehicle can turn in. Is that the one to which he referred?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the truck drivers' code of lights is really quite long, and as we have a written definition of headlight usage, I do not think this would be the place or the time to describe it. In essence a full headlight implies he is taking the right of way a flip on a headlight indicates that he will give you the right of way, and this signal repeated invariably means that there is a danger or a hazard, either when you are following or when you are approaching. Either when you are following a vehicle or a vehicle is approaching these signals mean precisely the same. They are the three basic signals.
7.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I very quickly add my small word of congratulation to those which have already been offered to those who have been responsible for compiling this slim and handsome volume. There is a great deal in it, and most of what is in it I like very much. I also like the cover, the general layout, the graphics, and I only wish I could say that I like the use of the typography inside. In saying this, I take up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. They put it in slightly different ways, one talking about emphasis and the other about urgency, which really is the same thing.
116
The whole of this little book, with two exceptions, is written with a steady dead level of lower case, all of one typeface. There is practically no use of black or heavy type, no use of red ink, except an occasional headline, and no use of block capitals. Far more emphasis could have been given to more important points by using a different type, and I think it would have added greatly to the weight and value of the book. Heavy black type is used on only two occasions, "If in doubt—do not overtake", and "Mirror—Signal—Manoeuvre", which occurs a number of times. My noble friend Lord Nugent has expressed admiration for that particular slogan, and I wish I could go along with him. I do not altogether admire this slogan, because I am all too conscious of being behind people who may or may not use their mirror, but who signal and instantly manoeuvre, greatly to my detriment. There are many drivers who think that as soon as they have switched on their indicators to show they are about to turn right are in some mysterious way entitled to do so. I should like to see this slogan worded as "Mirror—Signal—Manoeuvre if safe". It may sound a slightly hairsplitting argument, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may think it is not.
I take up something that has been mentioned so far only by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, and that is this matter of sidelights in the fog, which appears on page 20. The photograph shows a situation perhaps as improbable as it is dangerous. As my noble friend has indicated, the lorry which is overtaking the car may or may not have its sidelights on, one simply cannot tell. I put this with some force. I feel that I have a certain right to do so, because it was just about a year ago, in fact December 11 last year, that I referred to this particular point of the use of sidelights in daylight fog by asking a Starred Question in your Lordships' House. By way of a supplementary question I asked the Minister who was replying—who was, need I say, none other than the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom—this question:
"Does he appreciate, I wonder, that in spite of the instructions in The Highway Code the vast majority of motorists use only their sidelights in daylight fog, and that this practice is dangerous because it is misleading?" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/12/1967, col. 853.]

117
I have done a little observation of my own on this point, both while driving along the road in daylight fog and by sitting deliberately in a lay-by and watching traffic coming towards me. I am fairly certain I am near enough accurate when I say that of all the cars that drive in fog in daylight, where it is necessary to have some kind of light, most use sidelights only. Of those that use sidelights only, three or four out of five become visible as they approach you from the fog before their sidelights become visible. In other words, the sidelights are, as the noble Lord perfectly correctly told me in answer to my Question, quite useless in fog. I said in raising my Question that sidelights are dangerous, and I say it again for this reason. The driver who puts his sidelights on puts them on for some reason, and that reason can only be that he thinks they can be seen. Well, if his car is seen before his sidelights, he is grossly deceiving himself. He thinks he can be seen sooner than he can, and it is that kind of thing that gives rise to the situation in the photograph where this lorry, perhaps with its sidelights on, is overtaking a man that can u he seen while he cannot. This action is dangerous, and I think it should be said to be so.
May I quote the noble Lord's reply to my remark. He said:
"I think that that is an interesting observation. I will see that that point of view is transmitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transnort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 /12/1967, col. 853.]
Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to have another go.
Now I come to a matter which I skipped over because my noble friend Lord Somers had mentioned it, but I should like to add my support to what he said about the lines and lanes, and the instructions on pages 11 and 12. I base my criticism of this largely on the fact that the first sentence at the top of the page says that these "guide, warn, or give orders," and I think to say that and not to say which does which is ambiguous and misleading to somebody who does not know. It is all very well for us to say "We know": The Highway Code is written not for those who know but for those who do not know, and for those who think they know and do not, and I do not think they are going to
118
find things very much use unless they are written with precision. My general attitude is that all instructions to motorists, whether printed in The Highway Code, or painted on a road, or stuck up on posts in the form of signs, should be simple, unambiguous, consistent and also necessary. I do not think I snail be seriously contradicted in those four requirements, although other noble Lords may have other ideas.
The next matter with which I want to deal is the question of the "inside" and "outside", "left-hand" and "right-hand". My noble kinsman, Lord Shannon, may have thought that I was being tiresome in trying to pin him down to a definition, and I was interested to see that his definition of "inside" and "outside" was precisely the same as stated by the Ministry of Transport in The Highway Code. But it has already emerged that there is some divergence of opinion as to which is the inside and which the outside. Let us get this absolutely clear. The Ministry of Transport has stated, not in so many words but by implication, that from now on the outside shall be deemed to be in the middle. This is a conception which is so totally novel that it will be very difficult to get it across to the uninstructed young motorist. I have never met anything, from an orange to a motorway, in which the inside is on the outside and the outside is in the middle. It cannot be done. I suggest that we should go straight back to Rule 60, where it says perfectly clearly that the inside is the left-hand lane, which I say is wrong, and the outside is the right-hand lane. Then one goes on to Rule 61 which says, "choose the left-hand lane", and in the next sentence it talks of "the right-hand lane," without any nonsense about inside or outside. I do not think we need offside or nearside, but I think that we all understand left and right. If anybody is confused about that he will not pass his driving test anyway, so we need not both about him.
I now turn to Rule 147, and may I add a little support to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about the picture of the level crossing on pages 32 and 33. He drew attention to the notice which says "Another train is coming if lights continue to flash", and

119
he suggested another electrical signal which might displace it or perhaps be used in conjunction with it. Motorists when driving cars are not required to read notices on the right of the road at all; and even if they were, it would be exceedingly difficult for them to read a notice as far off as that. This notice, giving a warning that another train may be coming if the lights continue to flash, is of vital importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said that this is likely to be reworded, but there will be a sentence of that kind and I submit that it ought to be on the half-barrier, right in front of the driver, where it can be read by him, and not on the right, where he cannot reasonably be expected to see and almost certainly will not see it.
I now have one or two remarks, I hope constructive, about the traffic signs themselves on pages 37 and 38. My noble kinsman Lord Shannon and my noble friend Lord Somers have already mentioned the diagonal lines, and may I support what they have said? If one thing can be cancelled by having a line drawn through it, then why not another? If a line can be drawn through a walking man meaning "No pedestrians", why not have a line through a bicycle meaning "No bicycles"? And in the "No overtaking" sign, why not put a line through the right-hand car, the red one? I think that a sign of that sort exists in France. If one crosses out the right-hand car, it becomes clear to everybody that it means "No overtaking". It also, I think, makes unnecessary the sign on the next page, "Single file traffic". This appears to me to offend against three of my criteria: it is not simple, it is not unambiguous, and it is not necessary. I do not know what "single file" would mean to a foreigner; and perhaps that is not very important, though I think it is important but I am not at all sure what it means to an Englishman. What is single-file traffic? It is made clear what it is, although not very clear, by saying that it is "single file in each direction". What in fact it means is simply "No overtaking". Therefore, would not the "No overtaking" sign be enough, without having this extra sign? I think that it is a plate to be put on some other sign, but I do not see that it is altogether necessary.
120
In regard to the matter of roadworks, in the Highway Code one sees "Fred" with his shovel, digging away at a mound of earth. I am all for this sign if it is used sensibly, but when one has got past the roadworks there ought to be a sign. Roadworks ended "—not in the form of a sign saying, "Road clear", which exists on the next page and which must be used only by the police and probably only on motorways, but certainly a sign saying that one has passed those works. The sign that I suggest is to have the same picture of "Fred" and his shovel with a red line drawn through, which would make the matter clear. There is a sign in France which tells you that you have come to the end of roadworks. The point is that once you have passed an obstruction in a road announced in advance by a roadworks sign, you think that they are over; but you may come round the bend and find another one which was covered by the original sign, and that is dangerous. Every single obstacle in the road ought to have a sign which should be cancelled as soon as one has passed it.
I have a personal béte noir and that is the sign that says, "Reduce speed now". I have discovered that my own personal antipathy to this sign is not entirely peculiar to myself. A few days ago I was discussing this debate with a very distinguished motorist of my acquaintance, and indeed of some of your Lordships, and I said that I was proposing to say something about this sign. He said, "Oh, it doesn't bother me. When I see that sign I know that there is another hundred yards before I need slow down". The sign says, of course, "Reduce speed now"; but that comment is an indication of the sort of respect that is given to this particular sign. This offends against practically every criterion I can think of. It is not simply because you do not know what it means; it is not unambiguous for the same reason, and it certainly is not necessary, and it could even be dangerous. What speed am I doing when I am told to slow down. Am I doing 70 m.p.h. or 30? Is it raining? Is there mud on the road, or is it bone dry? What is "now"? Is it when I pass this sign or when I see it? I submit that the sign is totally unnecessary, and I very much hope that we shall see the end of it before much longer.

121
I confess that there is one sign which I ought to have known, but did not. I think that it was in the old Highway Code, and I excuse myself only on the ground that I have never seen it. I am enchanted to discover that there are two signs which are identical, except that one has a yellow background and one has a white background. One sign says "Stop: Children" and the other sign says "Stop: Police". Now that I have discovered this, I can hardly wait for the day when 1 am driving down the street and see the "Stop: Police" sign held up by a man in a white coat while a party of "Bobbies" goes scampering and skipping across the road. Perhaps that is rather frivolous. Perhaps it would be more dignified if they were marching tightly closed up together in single file. If only at the same time they could sing the Policemen's Chorus from The Pirates of Penzance, then my cup of happiness would be full. My Lords, I think that I see clearly ahead of me a sign with a red circle and a red triangle inside it and another red triangle beyond it! It reads "Stop—Give Way".
8.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having put my name down for this debate, but unfortunately I did not know whether or not I should be able to be present. Consequently, I shall certainly not detain your Lordships for many moments. However, I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on achieving a very good job in the production of this Highway Code, which is a very great improvement on what has gone before. If one realises the purport and object of the production, and the fact that it is intended to be a source of information both for those who do not drive and for those who are experienced drivers, it necessarily has to cover a great deal of ground and I think it covers it very well indeed.
One thing which I should particularly like to say to the Government is that we appreciate very much the consultation which they had during the course of production of this Code with those organisations who are interested in road user-ship. I think all of us were able to offer quite a number of constructive suggestions, and it is evident that the
122
Government have paid considerable attention to them. It was a great disappointment to me to realise that, as a Parliament, we were not going to he able to see the Code in draft. The new suggestion which the Ministry have put before us to-day, that it is proposed in future to publish the draft in the form of a Green Paper, is exceptionally helpful. That will be a very great advantage, because in this debate alone quite a number of exceedingly cons ructive suggestions have come forward, which the noble Lord would probably wish to include in the Code itself.
I would refer in particular to the great matter of dispute as regards inside and outside lanes, on which I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I had myself spotted the solution in Rules 60 and 61, and I feel that that must be the answer, because there is no doubt that at least 50 per cent. of the people will consider that the outside lane is, in fact, what the Government consider to be the inside lane, and vice versa. But if you refer to them as the left-hand lane, the centre lane or middle lane, and the right-hand lane, it must surely avoid all confusion until we get to the point of six-track highways.
Of course, everything has gone up in price during the past four years or so, but a jump from 6d. to ls. 3d. in the price of The Highway Code strikes one as being slightly excessive. Nevertheless, one appreciates that this is a considerably bigger production than its predecessor. But there is one Point about which I should like clarification. Who is going to subsidise the free issues of this Code? It is being freely issued to those who obtain their provisional licences and also to all those foreign visitors who come into the country. I should like to know whether the subsidy which is going to meet the cost of this provision will come from the taxpayer as a whole or from those road users who buy The Highway Code at the price of 1s. 3d. if that price of 1s. 3d. contains a sufficient margin of profit to enable the free issue to those other classes, then I think it is very unfair indeed. If the Government decide to make a free issue to any particular section of the community they should accept the responsibility for meeting its

123
cost out of the general body of taxation, rather than that it should fall to be a burden upon the shoulders of other road users.
I hope that the Government will maintain their programme in regard to the time when this Code will become available to the public generally. It has been stressed that it has been overdue for a very long time. I hope, too, that the Government will do their best to have much more speedy revisions and not take nearly such a long time before bringing out another edition. I am sure that would be a very good thing.
There is only one other question which I should like to ask the noble Lord, and that is with regard to the front cover. I noticed in the chart of signs that the sign on the cover is the one which indicates that a motorist is to keep left. May I ask whether there is any political significance in the cover?
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not mind my intervening at this late hour, but there is one point which I should like to make. The rules for pedestrians are too few. There should be a Rule 22 which reads:
"You must not be drunk in any highway or public place."
I mention this matter of drunkenness of pedestrians because I myself was once affected. Thirty years ago I ran over and killed a man, and after three days at the law court it was proved that he was a drunkard. Increased penalties for being drunk on the road are well worthy of consideration by the Minister of Transport, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to mention that point to him.
8.7 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I feel that I should perhaps apologise to the House that my name went down on a list which did not reach everybody. Nevertheless, I happily give way to my noble friend on this score. There are two reasons why I do not want to follow other noble Lords into criticism or otherwise, or comment in some detail, on the contents of the Code. They are, first, that I am one of the fortunate people who were involved in consultation with the Ministry,
124
the R.A.C. being one of the bodies consulted. So I have had some opportunity to have my say in detail, and repetition is useless. But I should like to join in what my noble friend Lord Brentford said about the quality of these consultations, because, let us be fair, I have been critical of some aspects of consultation with Government Departments in the past, and it is only right that when something has gone well I should say so.
I, too, am very glad to see the inclusion of certain matters that we put forward, certainly with regard to roundabouts and the new signs for direction indicator signals, and I think we have both been able to be helpful on this occasion. I should point out that this little motif on the outside, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, is not of my doing, although it is of course a fairly familiar emblem on the outside of a number of R.A.C. publications. I disclaim that, as I also disclaim any influence in the little sign at the bottom right-hand corner of page 39.
The second reason why I am not going into detail is that our debate, though useful and informative for the future, is academic at the moment because, whatever may be suggested, we cannot change the contents of the Code. We are asked to approve. We can reject it or accept it. Therefore, I was most happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, confirm what the Minister of Transport said last night in another place, that immediate consideration was to be given to revising the system. I certainly agree with him that there should be no question of holding up this new edition, which is required after so long, while this consideration takes place. Too much has gone on and there is too much requirement for that, although it has to be admitted that it is in some ways a pity that the Code has to go ahead with a number of things in it which we should have preferred to see changed.
I hope, however, that this consideration of a better system for the future will really be immediate. I shall look forward to communicating in due course, either with the noble Lord or with the Minister, on some ideas with which I will not waste time now. But I should like to say just this. I hope that, in that consideration which is to come, it may be possible to examine whether

125
arrangements can be made so that the Minister of Transport will be able to alter part of the Code without having to come back to Parliament. I have in mind in particular the question of signs, which he can in any case authorise by regulations, subject to the normal scrutiny by Parliament. It seems to me that even if a new Code is to come out in two or three years' time it may be necessary to change some signs (I have particularly in mind the automatic half-barrier crossing sign, and there may indeed be others) well before that happens, and I feel it should be possible for changes of this kind to be made whenever there are reprints. I think it might even be worth considering whether it is possible to provide some kind of correction slip, preferably adhesive, which could be stuck in the Code in lieu of a natural reprint.
I think this brings up the point of the necessity for widespread and powerful publicity because, apart from signs and things, there will inevitably be in the future, as has proved to be the case in the past, many new developments starting before there is another edition of the Code. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that everything possible is done—a point has been made particularly with regard to "X-ways"—to bring this to the attention of those who need it.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said quite rightly that it is a requirement for everybody, on renewing his driving licence, to write "Yes" in the space provided for the answer to the question, "Have you read The Highway Code?"—and he gave us impressive figures on the distribution of the Code in very large quantities, running into millions. I am sorry to say it, but it is my personal belief that that writing of "Yes" on the driving licence application form is probably the biggest instance of mass perjury in our national life. And it has to be admitted that, notwithstanding all this, The Highway Code will not reach a great many people; neither will those that have the chance bother to read it. This brings out the necessity for propaganda activities in this connection, to ram it down the nation's throat if necessary; and I hope the noble Lord may be able to say something about that when he comes to wind up the debate.
126
The noble Lord also mentioned the question of automatic half-barrier crossings, and I was glad to hear him say for the Government that they had taken up what the Hixon Tribunal had recommended. We, of course, have had regard to what the Tribunal said in regard to national publicity, that this should be pursued
"to the extent thought most effective with the aid of the motoring organisations".
We are certainly quite prepared to do our best. My noble friend Lord Brent-ford mentioned this point, and it may be that he will want to say something more before I sit down. We tried hard 0 help by issuing a map containing advice and showing the location of all these things, but it has to be admitted (and I feel that here my noble friend may agree with me) that under the impact of S.E.T., and things like that, we are simply not in a position to support the Ministry over these matters in the way we should wish However, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said—that sound education of the public is the best answer to this—and I hope very much that it is going to be really sound and, as with the other point I have just made, really powerful and effective.
My Lords, there is just one point arising from the Code which I should like to mention, and that is the traffic sign illustrated in the bottom left-hand corner of page 38. That is the sign depicting a level crossing with automatic half-barriers ahead. The sign itself is referred to variously, according to, taste, as "The hammers of Hell" or "The low-flying tin-tacks", whichever you choose. It is, of course, the sign which came in for so much criticism by the Hixon Tribunal, and I am rather sorry to think that it should go into the Code at this stage, although I appreciate the difficulty of taking it out because the matter is not decided. But I hope that the Government will not hold back on the speed of their decision and that it will be possible to amend the Code in future reprints in respect of this sign, which is now known to be, or has been pronounced upon as being, dangerous and ineffective.
My Lords, I have not much more to say, but on this point of education by means of propaganda I feel that I very good point was made earlier on (I think

127
the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, himself mentioned this) about the necessity to preserve gaps between cars. Education by propaganda means is urgently required here, because at the present time if you drive at the correct distance from the car in front it will instantly be filled up by a couple of minis. There is no effective means of stopping this except by education, and I hope that this is what will happen.
There is another curious thing which has been completely omitted from this Code and which I should think is a great cause of confusion, particularly to less-experienced drivers. That is what I can only describe as the police "pointing" signal. That is the signal frequently used by policemen on traffic duty—it is widely used in London and, so far as I know, everywhere else—when they are about to halt the traffic. They point at the car they wish to halt and then put their hand up. It does not say anything about that in the Code. Also, it is a questionable signal at best, because if a policeman points his finger at somebody and you look you can see that finger pointing, but when you have it pointed at you all you see is a little blob and you cannot be quite sure what he means. I think there needs to be clarification on this point. This practice has crept in and is now very widespread. But, as I say, it is not mentioned here in the Code. I feel that at the earliest opportunity this practice should be regularised. Either it should be accepted as an official signal or the police should be stopped from using it, because I think it could very easily lead to a prosecution for ignoring a signal given by an authorised person.
My Lords, I think the noble Lord was quite right when he said that we shall see another edition of the Code in a couple of years or so, plus a little administration time, because I think that the present Congress sitting in Vienna will probably throw up something which will make it necessary. In the meantime, as an interim effort, though there are still a few details that need putting right, I wish it well.
8.20 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly, with apologies for not having given notice. I wish to
128
take up one or two points and in particular one mentioned by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend Lord Chesham, namely, that of separation distances. It is obvious that there is room for a great deal of further education of drivers in keeping the correct distance from the vehicle in front. May I put forward for the Government's consideration a scheme which I have seen in operation in New Zealand? There, on certain roads, they have transverse lines painted on the road at intervals of so many feet. There is a notice at the roadside to the effect that the spacing of these lines is the correct spacing for vehicles travelling at, say, 40 miles an hour. I have never seen anything like that in this country and I think that its adoption would be worth considering. I put it forward to Her Majesty's Government in that spirit.
The question of driving in fog has already been dealt with fairly fully. I had intended mentioning that, having had only this morning a long drive from mid-Wales in varying degrees of fog. I was appalled by what I found in the way of lights, or lack of them, on most of the vehicles. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use every means of publicity at their disposal to bring home to people the absolute folly—there is no other word for it—of driving in thick fog on sidelights alone. Part of the trouble arises from the term "sidelights". We ought to consider them purely as parking lights and to call them parking lights. I hope that we shall eventually see the day when if we see a vehicle with its sidelights (or its parking lights) on we shall know that that vehicle is stationary, and if we see a vehicle with headlights on, dipped or not, we shall know that the vehicle is moving. I am sure that that is the eventual answer that we shall come to. I am convinced of the value of having dipped headlights on all moving vehicles, even in built-up areas with street lights. One way in which we can start in that direction is to stop calling those silly things "sidelights" and start calling them "parking lights" instead. People will then be less tempted to rely on them alone when the car is moving.
My noble friend, Lord Cork and Orrery, mentioned people who do not know and think that they do. A far greater number on the roads are people

129
who think that they know better; people who think that they know better than the painstaking draftsmen, for instance, who produced this booklet; people, in short, who invent their own signals. They are one of the biggest menaces on the roads to-day. Now that flashing direction indicators are being used more and more, people are using them for all sorts of purposes for which they were never intended. They are forgetting about hand signals altogether. A very widespread and pernicious practice is that of switching on the left side or nearside indicator to show that they are ready to be overtaken. About half the drivers I meet on the road—or half of those that I overtake—do that. It is bound to cause some confusion if you use a mechanical signal for more than one purpose. I even know drivers who use the right indicator for the same purpose, which is even worse. Here again, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use all the means at their disposal to bring these lessons to the driving public.
There is one last, small point on behalf of visitors from abroad. So long as we continue to drive on the left side of the road there will be differences in practice between this country and the Continent; and I think some guidance is necessary for foreign visitors coming here. A short time ago I needed to get something of that sort for a girl who was coming to us and who spoke no English. I went to the A.A. and asked if they had any digest of The Highway Code in either French or German. No such thing! I hope that the Minister of Transport will produce some sort of précis of the traffic regulations in this country in other languages for the benefit of foreign visitors.
8.27 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, is a very strange experience to take part in a debate where Her Majesty's Government are almost constantly praised by all speakers. It brings a slight air of unreality to our proceedings. But may I say how grateful I am to noble Lords who have spoken so constructively about this particular new publication, or old publication in a revised form, and also for the congratulations which they have given to the devoted men and women who have produced this booklet? I think personally that it is an excellent piece
130
of work and I know that your Lordships' congratulations to them will be appreciated.
Incidentally, I do not believe that there is any specific significance in the fact that the arrow on the cover is the "Keep Left" sign. Mine seems to have grown red—which perhaps makes it "Keep even Letter". But it is good typography, I am advised, pointing to the title of the booklet. There is another strange experience that I have enjoyed to-day: the pigeon post has been working very effectively throughout. It has indicated that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has come up with an idea that people have not as yet thought of. The suggestion that he has made about a different type of hand signals at a zebra crossing is, apparently, a new one and will be considered by the Ministry. May I congratulate him on the originality of his thought? The noble Lord, Lord Somers, suggested a sign of this type and I think that this is obviously sensible. As to the situation of pulling up at a crossing, and at a zebra crossing, where some such sign is needed, it is not as difficult as noble Lords make out—inside, outside, left hand, right hand. If you read the booklet carefully enough it is fairly clear. The passage about horses is a little obsolete now—
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting: but is "fairly clear" clear enough?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Earl is most precise. A thing is either clear or not clear. I am glad that he has reminded me of this fact. Incidentally, as noble Lords may know, there is a fairly substantial debate to follow this discussion, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal with all the points which have been raised. They will, of course, be studied by the officials. We shall all agree that it is not too early to start considering the next edition. The Minister has said that in two years' time we are expecting to start work on the successor to this document if not to bring it to a final form, so I think it would be wise, while this debate is fresh in people's minds, if organisations like the British Horse Society and the Cycling Council of Great Britain, and those noble Lords who have put a lot of hard work and

131
thought into this matter, started to feed ideas into the Ministry of Transport now.
I should like to make one or two points which I think of importance. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who courteously apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate, said that one of the major causes of mass perjury in the country was the need for people to sign a piece of paper when they applied for a driving licence, stating that they had read the Code. In fact this is no longer required, so we need no longer perjure ourselves in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, also said that publicity for the contents of the document was more important than the need to perjure ourselves by signing a form. There is to be a widespread campaign about its contents conducted by the Ministry of Transport, and I think that that is the best way to get the contents known by as many people as possible.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, made an important point about price. This links up with what other noble Lords have said about the size of the document. It is really a combination of two documents, the old Code and the old publication on traffic signs. Sold separately, they would each have cost one shilling. Printing costs have gone up, and so I think that the price of 1s. 3d. for this publication is not unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, mentioned the problem confronting foreigners who could not read the Code. The main points of the 1959 Code were contained in leaflets printed in French and German which were given to visitors from overseas. Probably on the occasion to which the noble Lord referred the supply of copies had run out. I am sure it is important that there should be a précis of this document in French and German, as there was of the 1959 publication. Incidentally there are leaflets in Hindu and Urdu, which is not unimportant today.
Suggestions have been made about a special précis for children and for learners. I think this is a good idea. There is in fact a very good publication for children. It was produced for deaf children, but was so good that it is used for general distribution to children of six to twelve years of ago. It is profusely illustrated and it has proved useful. I have no doubt that the suggestions
132
made for special extracts to be taken from this document will be considered by the Ministry of Transport.
My Lords, I have only two other points to make. Various noble Lords spoke about the use of side-lights on motor vehicles. In fact it is made clear in the Code that when there is fog it is headlights which have to be used. Paragraph 94 says:
"Use your headlamps in day-time mist or fog or if the light is bad…".
The other point relates to the barrier at level crossings and the existence of a flashing light indicating that another train is coming. This is one of the important elements under consideration—whether a different sort of light or indication should be given, for the benefit of someone standing at a half-barrier halt, that a second train is coming almost immediately. The positioning of the present sign is not, I think, so important. A few vehicles standing in line at the barrier would mean that there would be plenty of time for a driver to read a sign on the right hand side of the road. I am certain that the designer working on a revised lay-out of the half-barrier will consider the points which have been made by noble Lords.
As I said earlier, my Lords, we have another important debate to undertake. May I thank noble Lords for their courtesy and for their constructive analyses. I know they will be noted by the various individuals in the Ministry of Transport who I am certain are already preparing the next edition of this Code.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RIGHTS OF MINORITIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
8.36 p.m.
LORD REAY LORD REAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inform the Government of Northern Ireland that unless radical reforms are soon enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament to eliminate discrimination against religious and political minorities, action on this fundamental question by the United Kingdom Parliament will become inevitable. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start with a two-fold proposition; namely, that the situation in

133
Northern Ireland, both the underlying situation and the current situation, is such that for the reserved powers in the Government of Ireland Act to have any meaning Parliament at Westminster must be entitled to debate this subject, not just in this House, but also in another place, where at present Members of Parliament have been prevented from debating it. Secondly, unless the Government of Northern Ireland rapidly removes the causes of discontent in that country, it must be proper for the Government of this country to take the initiative.
No attempt has been made to deny that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious, even by the Government of Northern Ireland. When they produced their promises of reform on November 22 they said:
"Unless the situation is stabilised and political action restored to constitutional channels there is a grave risk of still more serious disorders."
Yet a week later, after promises of reform had been made, a senior police officer is reported as saying, referring to the events of last week-end in Armagh:
"Yesterday was the most potentially dangerous situation we have had since the present unrest began."
And again:
"It could have been the beginnings of civil war in Ireland."
In other words, the situation is potentially critical to law and order, despite the recent announcements of reform, and in so far as the life and liberty of subjects of the United Kingdom are the concern of this House it must be our business to debate this subject and to recommend action, if we choose, to Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, before going on to discuss the causes of the discontent I should like to say something about the relationship between the Government of Ireland and the Government of this country. To start with, I should like to read Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Since the only copy I could get in this House is an uncut version, I may be right in supposing that some of your Lordships, at least, are not familiar with its terms. Section 75 says:
"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything con
134
tained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof."
So it will be seen that the terms are very wide.
In the ordinary business of the year-to-year management of the economy there is of course a great deal of concealed, but very real, direction of the affairs of Northern Ireland by the Government in this country. The word "direction" is not a very good word, but what I mean is something more than influence and something generally less than coercion. The strength behind this direction lies not only in the legislative function of Westminster in relation to the North of Ireland, and in the exclusive responsibility which the United Kingdom Government has in the fields of defence and foreign policy, but also on the dependence of that country on United Kingdom subsidies. They are difficult to assess but must be something between £50 and £100 million a year.
But beyond the question of economic management there is a more important principle which is recognised—namely, that parity in legislation should exist between Westminster and the North of Ireland in those fields affecting the fundamental rights and obligations belonging to citizenship of the United Kingdom. It is accepted that parity should exist, and does exist, in the fields of taxation and of social welfare. Surely if it must exist in these fields, it should also exist in the field of political enfranchisement which touches even more intimately on the description of United Kingdom citizenship. Is not political equality involved in the very description and structure of citizenship of the United Kingdom? For what we are talking about is a case of political inequality which has gone on so long that it has become a matter of scandal and has produced resentments that have become a threat to public order.
The history of bitterness, of the prejudices and the antagonisms of and between the two groups in Northern Ireland is as long as the history of Ulster itself, but I am sure they have become much less than they once were. But inequalities in the present structure of local government simply allow those

135
past antagonisms and prejudices to be perpetuated. Moreover, they have another undesirable effect. There is an all too long tradition, both depressing and dangerous, of minority Parties and interests in Northern Ireland not contesting elections. This is only another reflection of the reasons that produce violence in the streets. Both derive from the minorities' certainty that they cannot get justice under the system as it now operates.
The two principal inequalities in local government are these. In the first place, suffrage is not universal. In local elections only about 75 per cent. are enfranchised. Voters need to be the legal occupiers of their places of residence. This is an inequality against the poor and the young, and it is intolerable in itself. But it leads to a further and worse abuse, in the siting and allocation of houses. The allocation of houses is in charge of the councillor of each ward, and the practice that has sprung up is to pack the voters who are of a different allegiance to your own into that ward which you are bound to lose. This practice is called gerrymandering, a term which derives from the practice of the Irish in Boston. An example of the effect of this is found in Londonderry, where so many houses have been sited in the one Catholic ward that it has a density of 125 persons per acre, compared with a density of 25 per acre in the Protestant wards.
The second practice which has grown up is that where a family do not have a vote, because they have never had a house, they may be kept indefinitely on the waiting list for a house. So that in order to deprive a family of a vote they have first of all to be deprived of a house. The principal effect of all this is to provide Protestant majorities in predominantly Catholic areas. Londonderry has a Protestant minority of 30 per cent., yet there is a majority of 12 to 8 on the local council. But this is not just the effect; it is the purpose of these malpractices. These are the two chief electoral grievances. Others, such as the business vote, are much less important. But clearly there is a broad field in which discrimination is practised. It exists in employment, both public and private. The proportion of Catholics in prominent
136
positions on public bodies is much lower than the proportion of Catholics in the country. Here I should like to refer to a report which has been produced by a Committeee of the Society of Labour Lawyers, who have amassed considerable evidence of discrimination. At this moment it has been sent to the Government of Northern Ireland, prior to general publication. When it is published, I think that discrimination will be even less deniable than it now is.
My Lords, I want to make one other point. Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act declares that any law made so as (among other things) either directly or indirectly to give a preference, privilege or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief shall be void. Accordingly, I should like, in all seriousness, to raise the question of whether an electoral law which enables the practice of discrimination on religious grounds, as we have every reason for concluding now exists in Northern Ireland, should not itself be considered or be ruled void under the terms of the 1920 Act. Secondly, even if a legal interpretation is found against the point I am making, I suggest that the discrimination is so patently against the spirit of the Government of Ireland Act, and evidence for its existence is so abundant, that the Government of the United Kingdom is not only warranted but by its responsibility in relation to Northern Ireland under an obligation to demand that this should be investigated and remedied to its own satisfaction.
On November 22, the Government of Northern Ireland announced considerable concessions. In the first place, they said that houses would in future be allocated on a points system, as is done here. Secondly, they promised reform of local government by 1970. In addition, they announced the removal of the business vote, a colourful but relatively unimportant anomaly, and the establishment of an Ombudsman (though they did not include any reference to local authorities and local affairs), and the setting up of a Development Commission for Londonderry, which to some extent was an admission of failure of local authority government. The announcement on the reform of the housing allocation is extremely welcome. Obviously, we do not

137
know how the points system will work, or how it will be made to work. We shall have to wait to judge by its effects. Moreover, we do not know whether there will be any difficulty in getting local authorities to accept it. Indeed, there is a report that one council has already refused to adopt the system.
In the 1967 White Paper on Local Government Reform, the Government of Northern Ireland managed to discuss the question without once mentioning franchise reform. So the proposal as it stands is too distant and too vague. But the worst omission of all from the Government's announcement is the refusal to include universal suffrage in local elections. This is something much too closely related to the malpractices in local government and much too widely demanded for its own sake to be ignored now. Moreover, there seems to be a certain distrust of the Government's intentions which has not been assuaged by the announcements of reform. Even the proposed Commission in Londonderry has been feared in some quarters as likely to be a device for removing economic control of that area against the day when Catholics acquire a majority in the area.
The Government of Northern Ireland has certainly shown itself at least responsive in some measure to the minority demands, but the proposed reforms come at a very late hour, and they are not yet enough. We all know that the Government has to contend with strong pressure, but for decades the Government line has been simply to deny that there is any malpractice, any discrimination, any need for reform at all. The Government will concede to pressure, but only to pressure; and we are therefore calling on the British Government to apply that pressure on behalf of the minorities in Northern Ireland. In conclusion, I would say that this Government should demand that universal franchise be introduced into local government; that machinery should be established to put an end to religious discrimination, and that this machinery be sufficient to satisfy the British Government. That Government should, in short, demand that Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act be implemented and the spirit behind it honoured, and that the
138
principles of management and franchise be brought in line with those that operate everywhere else in the United Kingdom. In doing this, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government would not be exceeding their powers; they would be discharging their duty.
8.51 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, I do not know what connection the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has with Northern Ireland or whether he knows it well or not, but I have grown up and lived with the Irish question all my life. I am against discrimination. Whether or not it exists in Northern Ireland, I cannot say. I should like to say a word or two about recent history connected with Ulster. It will only be the older Members of your Lordships' House who will remember the Ulster crisis of the days immediately before the First Work War: the signing of the Solemn League of Covenant; the raising of the Ulster Volunteer-Force; the mutiny at the Curragh, when numbers of British officers sent in their resignations rather than be ordered to go North towards Ulster. They had the support in those days of the whole of the Conservative Party in this country under Bonar Law, himself an Ulsterman. This brought Britain to the very fringe of civil war, which was checked only by the outbreak of the World War.
The point I want to make is that at that time Ulster was not struggling to obtain self-government. She did not want self-government. Ulster wanted to remain governed by this country, as it had been governed since the Union for 120 years. When she failed to achieve that she agreed as part of the general Irish settlement to accept a Parliament and Government which she did not want. That is the historical background.
We are now debating a Question which asks for action by the United Kingdom Parliament on the fundamental question of discrimination against the minority. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, did not seem to me to suggest what action he thought should be taken. Would he, for example, like Ulster to go back to the old situation and be governed again by this country, abolishing the Parliament and local government? Let me look at that suggestion for a moment

139
and see what it would mean. It would mean increasing Ulster Members here at Westminster from twelve, as they are at present, to twenty-six. All Ulster services would have to be operated from Whitehall under a Minister, presumably a Chief Secretary for Ulster, as there used to be a Chief Secretary for Ireland. But after fifty-five years of self-government would Northern Ireland now accept this solution to be governed again directly by Britain as she was? I doubt it.
After Southern Ireland cut all connection with Britain in 1948 and became an independent Republic, Mr. Attlee, who was then Prime Minister leading a Labour Government, in the other place on October 28 of that year said:
"The view of His Majesty's Government has always been that no change should be made in the Constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland's free agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 28/10/48; col. 239.]
After all, Britain governed Ireland for 120 years, and I do not think anybody could say that that government was particularly successful. In the days of Mr. Gladstone, before he became converted to Irish Home Rule, coercion Bill after coercion Bill was passed in the British Parliament. Crimes Acts were passed and terrible things happened, like the occasion somewhere in County Cork—I think it was in a place called Mitchelstown—when the police were sent in to restore order and when they fired their rifles and killed a number of people. That was when Britain was governing Ireland. It is not, I am afraid, a very creditable record.
What else could you do? Would the noble Lord suggest, for example, that we should apply sanctions, like sanctions are now applied to Rhodesia? Would that help the minority in Northern Ireland, where unemployment is already especially high? I do not think it would. Under the financial clauses of the Government of Ireland Act, all the main taxes which the Ulster people pay are imposed, levied and collected by the British Treasury, and the Northern Ireland Government has power over only a very small section of the taxation field. Income tax and customs and excise, which are the main sources of taxation,
140
are collected by the British Treasury. Then there is a body called the Joint Exchequer Board, and the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance meets representatives of the British Treasury. They meet periodically and allocate revenue as between Britain and Northern Ireland.
I should like to say a word now about the minority in Northern Ireland, to which the noble Lord has referred. I do not say this in any way because I think the minority should be badly treated: I think they should be treated exactly the same as all the other people in Northern Ireland. But certain things about that minority must be remembered. You cannot dissociate them from the constitutional issue, because their whole raison d'étre is to abolish partition, to end Ulster's position in the United Kingdom and to bring her into the Irish Republic. That is the well-known aim of the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland. To go into the Irish Republic, Ulster will never consent to do.
I am not suggesting that all the members of these recent Civil Rights marches were Nationalists, but quite a number were. For instance, in the march in Londonderry on October 5 the leaders of the Civil Rights marchers were two or three Nationalist Members of Parliament. Also, it must not be forgotten that for six years, from 1956 to 1962, Ulster was savagely attacked by armed bandits of the Irish Republican Army based on the Republic. They burnt Customs posts; they attacked police stations; they attacked British Army camps, and in that campaign six Ulster police were murdered and over £1 million worth of property was damaged. It was largely that campaign by the I.R.A. which led to the passing of what is known as the Special Powers Act, which gave to the Northern Ireland Government power to detain without trial and other powers of that sort, because, by reason of intimidation, nobody could get any witness to come against those who were charged. That Special Powers Act, as noble Lords no doubt know, is still in operation. I understand that if things are made peaceable it is likely to be very much modified in future.
Now I come to another point which makes the position much more difficult in Northern Ireland, and that is the

141
action of a Presbyterian Minister named Mr. Ian Paisley. Mr. Ian Paisley leads a band of militant and extreme Protestants, and whenever a Civil Rights march is going to take place he brings his people—he did it in Londonderry; he did it in Armagh two days ago—joined, as I saw in the Press, by special contingents from Scotland, and I think he is largely supported by funds from the United States. He comes to these cities where the Civil Rights marchers are having their march and creates a situation in which there is likely to be serious fighting between the one group and the other.
I do not believe that Paisley commands any significant support among the people of Northern Ireland. If a referendum were taken to-day, I am certain that there would be a very large majority indeed for moderation, which, as noble Lords know, has been the theme of the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill, who has, ever since he took office, persued a moderate and liberal line. But these followers of Paisley are 400 years behind the times. One hardly dares to contemplate what took place in this country, in England, 400 years ago when the main theme of life was Protestant v. Catholic for 200 years; when Roman Catholic priests were dragged through the streets of London on hurdles and hanged, drawn and quartered just because they were Roman Catholic priests; and Protestants like Latimer and Ridley were burnt at the stake just because they were Protestants. That took place here 400 years ago. But, of course, all that has long ceased in this country, and I believe that it is now on the way out in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to the reforms which have already been announced by the Northern Ireland Government. I expect the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he replies, will probably refer to them, so I do not propose to go into them in detail at the moment, but, broadly speaking, these reforms have been approved by Liberal and Nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland; and they were notably approved the other day by the Liberal Member in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. Miss Shelagh Murnaghan. The outstanding thing that has not been dealt with is the local government franchise, to which the noble Lord referred. Of course, the position there is
142
this. The local government franchise which now exists in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as that which existed in this country up to the time when Mr. Attlee's Labour Government in, I think, 1948 changed it and introduced "One man, one vote." But in Ulster it vias not changed. I do not know whether it is suggested that Northern Ireland should follow slavishly everything that is done in this country, particularly when there are Governments of different complexions. There was a Labour Government here and a Conservative Government in the North of Ireland. Be that as it may, I personally think it ought to be done and that we ought to give the same local government franchise in Northern Ireland as we have here—one man, one vote. I think it will be done, but it may not be done to-morrow.
In view of what has already been done to meet the situation, surely these Civil Rights marchers should call off their demonstrations. But if they are going on and are to be opposed on every occasion by Paisley's band of extreme Protestants, then in my view consideration should be given to this. There are in Northern Ireland units of the British Army which are always stationed there, and I should have thought there was something to be said for the civil authorities there approaching the military authorities with a view to bringing in troops to prevent disorder if it is likely to arise.
I can remember, many years alp now, fortunately, when there were serious Protestant versus Catholic riots in Belfast. It must have been at least forty years ago. The Army was called in and troops were picketed at various points in the city, and they prevented a great deal of bloodshed. After all, when there were Civil Rights marches recently in the United States of America the National Guard was called in. If these disorders go on and if these Civil Marches continue it may well affect the remarkable industrial development which has taken place in Ulster in recent years, because people may think that it is a country of disorder and it will be unwise to establish their business there.
As noble Lords know, the two main industries in Ulster used to be shipbuilding and linen: shipbuilding by the two great firms of Harland and Wolff (which still goes on) and Workman and Clarke,

143
who have now been wound up for several years. But both those industries have declined and numbers of people who used to be employed in them are no longer so employed. The Ulster Government have done a remarkable job since the last war. I have obtained certain figures from the Northern Ireland Government Office here in London, Since the end of the last war 65,000 new jobs have been found. Industries have come in, one may say from all over the world. There is the great Du Pont industry of the United States of America and also Chemstrand of the United States, which both make some type of nylon and give a great deal of employment. The Michelin Tyre Company from France is established in Ulster; the British Enkalon Nylon factory from Holland is also established in that country, and of our own big concerns, Courtaulds, I.C.I. and Rolls Royce all have big establishments in Northern Ireland, and many other smaller firms have come in. I understand that there are ten new projects, recently finalised, which are going to Londonderry and which are expected to give jobs for 2,000 people.
The credit for getting in all these new businesses and firms must go to the Ulster Government, and particularly, I think, to their Minister of Commerce, Mr. Faulkner, who himself has travelled all over the world to get new industries—the United States, Germany, France and all over Europe, with, as your Lordships realise, great success. Nevertheless, it is well known that the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland is high. In spite of that, I think it can truly be said that Ulster is now a prosperous community. The advance in the standard of living there during my lifetime has been almost unbelievable, and in this economic climate all sections of the community have benefited, both majority and minority alike.
9.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that in giving support to the Question of my noble friend Lord Reay I am speaking entirely for myself. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, wished to know what connection Lord Reay had with the North of Ireland. I cannot tell him that about my noble friend, but, as I say, I can
144
speak for myself. I happen to be a resident of the Republic of Ireland. I in fact live on the Curragh, where the mutiny referred to by Lord Rathcavan took place. I was brought up in Donegal, which is now in the Republic but was part of the old Kingdom of Ulster, and I have just discovered, more or less to my alarm, that I am the owner of slum property in Londonderry, very much in the condition of the crowded wards which my noble friend has described, and I have been taking steps to find out exactly what anomalous position that puts me in. I am, politically speaking, a fan of both Captain O'Neill and Mr. Lynch the Republic's Taoisach, but I try not to let these things and my natural affection for all Ireland and Irishmen influence me too much.
It is as a Member of your Lordships' House, and the role, the often ambivalent role, of the British Parliament in these matters, which leads me to take a very little of your Lordships' time. I feel that time is the essence of my noble friend's Question. As I understand it, the desire of both Front Benches, both here and in another place, is to acknowledge the very considerable progress made by Captain O'Neill and not to interfere with it by interfering with him. He has done wonders which only a longtime pub-crawler in both Londonderry and Belfast could tell your Lordships about, were the hour not very late and your Lordships perhaps rather dry. He has made considerable dents in the uncivil (in its fullest meaning) political anomalies to do with the multiplicity of business votes and with the construction of local political boundaries. Left to himself—and he has appealed to Her Majesty's Government to leave him to himself—he would undoubtedly do much more.
The trouble is, will he be left to himself? Your Lordships will be aware of two modish phrases, "Revolution of rising expectations" and "Revolutionary backlash". Their modishness cannot take a slight chill from them. Both forces, in my experience, are at work in Northern Ireland, and each is the other's lines of supply. The persons and property of the innocent and not so innocent have already been caught in a dangerous field between these two poles, and the

145
danger is on the upswing in Londonderry, Belfast and now Armagh. Whatever its political complexion, Her Majesty's Government raises taxation in Northern Ireland, and though the economic traffic is not merely two-way but altogether favours the smaller country, as it should, the raising of taxation is a political privilege which goes with extreme political responsibility. The bedrock of responsibility is care for the citizen, and events in Northern Ireland suggest that local political control is less capable of this care because less sympathetic to the needs of its citizens.
How long must our Parliament wait? How much violence—and your Lordships have been told about violence or read about it—is needed before a little pressure, a little real interference, comes into being? My right honourable friend Mr. Grimond, lost leader of my noble friend Lord Reay, got into hot water himself last summer for suggesting that on the whole violent agitation did, regrettably, pay a few dividends. Will Ulster prove him right after all? In spite of my "revolution of rising expectations". I hope and believe that if Westminster makes clear to Stormont, and Stormont makes clear to its electorate. that the basic electoral reforms will go through, are going through, are subject neither to filibuster, gerrymandering, or less subtle modes of pressure, then, and only then, will there be a reasonable chance that the problems of Northern Ireland will be settled elector-ally: that is, reasonably: that is, as we all hope, politically.
In another place recently Mr. Maudling suggested that the question of Ulster be debated, if only because the Republican Labour Member for Belfast West, in the course of making similar representations to the Speaker, had slipped in a few blows below the belt. Mr. Maudling wanted these blows to be answered, though not in kind. Let me at least urge on noble Lords more influential than I am that we undertake a full debate in both Houses on the Ulster question and that we undertake it quite soon. I insist that such a debate might clear the air of those buried allegations of violence, malpractice and time-serving which so often give rise to the very actions they deplore.
146
I insist that such a debate would be no disservice to Captain O'Neill and no slur on a man with the courage of his own moderation. I suggest that it would also be politically honourable to debate Irish affairs at a moment when, due to Her Majesty's Government's import deposit manœuvre, the Republic is rather suspicious of our political honour. The crucial fact is that we may want the red hand of Ulster to remain politically the symbol of Northern Ireland; but vie certainly do not want a messy and less symbolic red on our own hands.
9.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the mover of this Question for giving us an opportunity to say some of the things that I think ought to be said, and many of which have indeed already been said. I would particularly refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, who has, I think, most adequately filled in for your Lordships the general history and some of the details. I should like also to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on his balanced approach to what is a most difficult problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, has been brought up in Ireland, and has known it all his life. I have not that advantage. But I have the advantage that I was brought up there as a child; I lived there for a considerable period of time, and I have returned there again, this time with perhaps some more responsibility than I had when I was young. I am not a particularly old man, but I can remember the day when we had no motor car. I well remember coming from school on a terribly slow train and being met with a horse and carriage; and I think I am correct in my memories when I say that we certainly did not have a car until somewhere around 1930.
Ireland is miles behind this country, and I must say that I think the responsibility lies here. I should also like to say that I feel that the best way we can help in this situation is to try to produce constructive feelings in Ulster between its peoples, and all its peoples. The ordinary person who to-day goes about his business on day-to-day affairs in the country has nothing else in mind except to exist, to get on, to do what any other ordinary human being in this United Kingdom wishes to do. He

147
is interested in the price of his cattle; he is interested in the astonishing difficulties of his farming; he is miles away from his market. He feels to a certain extent unsupported, and yet he feels that he is taxed and criticised. These, I feel, are points which we on this side of the water could help to smooth over, to support, to give strength to, so that in their day-to-day going about their business the people do not feel that they are subjects of criticism.
I have no doubt that there is discrimination. I have no doubt whatsoever, and it would be stupid to say that there was not. There are reasons for it, and it is the reasons we want to do away with. The suggestions which are made are very good, but at the same time I am worried about pressures. When we talk about bringing pressure to bear, then I think we are undermining the very things that we want to do. I think it is pressure which is largely causing indigestion in the entire world, let alone in Northern Ireland.
I think that both the Church and the State are perhaps inclining to move too fast to order, where there is no real feeling on which to hitch the order. When the forces which are at the disposal of Governments exercise their authority, with modern communications and modern methods they are subject to immediate "showing up". I have been a policeman, and I know that unless you feel that you have the confidence of those in authority over you and the confidence of those you are trying to protect and be fair to, you very soon turn sour and you are no longer a good policeman. The police force, the forces of law and order, should be protected and supported. They should be given every possible facility to maintain that law and order and to restore the discipline without which no community can live a decent, organised existence.
My Lords, I think that one must refer to that which the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, has already mentioned, the other side of the Border, the Republic of Ireland. It is not mincing matters to say that the Nationalists' whole policy is that Ireland should be united, and this is totally against the feelings of your fellow-countrymen in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to the Church, to the people who
148
live in Northern Ireland who enjoy the benefits of Northern Ireland, to come forth as individuals and to prove that they are not the directed force that they are thought to be. Let them come out and prove it, and then I feel we shall be getting somewhere towards making a homogeneous community, and one which we all want to see established.
I am sure that there are faults on both sides, but I do not believe that undue pressure or undue haste will increase the chance of our making the sort of responsible community that all of us who live in Northern Ireland wish to see. Jobs and houses are not only and solely the privilege of the Protestants, as is so often made out. There are Protestants without houses; there are Protestants without jobs. It is not just Protestants and Catholics. There is a wealth of poverty in Northern Ireland which must be overcome, and you have got to dig down beneath these flaunted differences to get to it.
I have said before that it is not really our fault that we are miles behind. In response to this Question, I beg that the Government at Stormont and the Government of the United Kingdom will work closely together, hand in hand, in support of one another, rather than the other way round, with this Government kicking Stormont into actions which they would be responsible for putting into force so that they would receive all the criticism.
I wholeheartedly agree with those who have already paid tribute to the present Prime Minister in Northern Ireland. He needs support, as do all the moderate, ordinary folk who have not raised their voices or their sticks. The best way to do that is to ensure that over here and over there we speak with the same voice. This will do away with the fear of isolation and will also show the other side—and there is another side—that they have no right to interfere in the affairs of the North any more than we have any right to interfere in the affairs of the South. If this is established, we can then, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, live side by side with honour, and not with guns, sticks or with verbal blows or any of the things with which, unfortunately, Ireland is to a great extent associated. Ireland is a happy country. It wishes to be happy, and it can be happy if we can bring it up to date—and it is time to do so. I have

149
nothing else to say, except to hope that this Government will give their fullest support to the present Government in Northern Ireland.
9.33 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I must apologise for not setting down my name as intending to speak in this debate. I had two Church appointments which I intended to fulfil, but on reflection I felt that some ecclesiastical representation might not be out of place in relation to the situation in Ireland in which the religious issues are so deeply entrenched. However unsuitable I am, in the absence of any other minister of religion or clerk in holy orders I wish to say something about the religious situation as it is represented, squalidly indeed, by Mr. Paisley.
Before I do so, may I first of all agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his assertion that constitutionally there is room for, and at a certain stage there will be a demand for, action on the part of this Government if matters in Northern Ireland reach the kind of crisis which some people already envisage. I stop short of wild enthusiasm when I am told of the proposals which have now been made and the fourfold programme which is now in progress in Stormont. It is true that a points system has been set in prospect for rehousing problems, but it is as yet strictly permissive. At least one Council, Dungannon I think, has refused altogether to have anything to do with it, and in any case it would need far more powerful teeth than is at present anticipated by those who look upon it with a good deal of anticipation and confidence.
It does not seem to me that the postponement of radical electoral improvements for at least three years has upon it the mark of urgency, when one reflects that 300,000 adults in Northern Ireland are now denied local government votes. If it were not somewhat cynical, it might be thought that the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland would prefer to postpone these matters until perhaps, as they think, a more favourable atmosphere to them were to appear on this side of the Irish Sea. Whether or not that is true, what surely is substantially true is that the Unionist Government at Stormont believe that they have to reckon with a powerful Protestant attitude which, in
150
large measure, is characterised by the so-called leadership of Mr. Ian Paisley.
Furthermore, Mr. Ian Paisley has been described, first of all, much more widely than in the particular areas of Northern Ireland, as a Presbyterian. He is not a Presbyterian. He is what is called a Free Presbyterian, and the adjective there is quite as inaccurate as the noun. In any case, he is not a Protestant leader, as one incautious statement averred in the daily Press only a few days ago. He is certainly not a Protestant in the accepted and traditional sense in which I claim to be a member of that great tradition, and he is certainly not a leader in the sense that he has great and objective ideas with which he has electrified, or with which he has stimulated, intelligent and resourceful Christian people.
It might not be out of place if a little more of Mr. Ian Paisley were put on record. He is very largely the author of the particular church which he has spawned. His doctorate is, I think, very largely a self-inflicted wound. He is a man of bony appearance and of a loud voice. I say these things without any feeling that I am unjustly treating him, because I said these things on two occasions in the open air in Ireland, one in Belfast and the other—a rather unsuitable place—an open air rally in the Horse Fair at Ballymena. I have tangled with Mr. Ian Paisley. On the first occasion he displayed a typical quality of his. He showed no inhibition whatsoever in the fact that he had no scholarship, and he was not in any way deterred by he fact that he was purely dogmatic and had no argument whatsoever to offer for the various declamatory statements that he was making. On the second occasion his followers threw a Rosary and a Bible at me, which I felt was at least an ecumenical gesture, and there was a near riot.
I assure this House that Mr. Ian Paisley has been immensely over-praised for qualities that he does not possess. He is a rabble rouser, he has a raucous approach and he has a dogmatic gesture. He is very largely duping a lot of simple people. Their prejudices are being increased by what he has to say, and it would be the gravest of misjudgments if it were allowed to appear in our affairs

151
that here is some Heaven-sent or devil-sent leader, some führer who can command the loyal support of people who follow the Protestant tradition and who stands for those things that are required and are necessary to the proclamation of the Christian faith. I say this without any fear of contradiction, because, unlike your Lordships, I know Mr. Ian Paisley and I have no use for him whatsoever. It is unfortunate that other people have a considerable amount of use for him, and it is not true, unfortunately again, that he does not represent a considerable fraction of anti-Roman feeling in Ulster.
What is true is that, on the general count of argument on the creative side of any political or Christian gesture which could be interpreted as a contribution to the welfare of Ulster, the sooner Mr. Paisley retires to the obscurity from which he should never have emerged, the sooner we shall be able to see an improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland itself. It is this comfort that is being given to Mr. Paisley and his supporters by incautious propaganda and by his self-styled leadership which is the spearhead or, if you like, the running ulcer betokening something of the underlying disease.
It is perhaps on that point that we can most practically register our attitude, and I would do so, if I may, on behalf of the Christian Church in this country, and would say, for I know that I speak for Anglicans as well as Methodists, and indeed for true Presbyterians, that we support those in Northern Ireland who are as disgusted as we are with the antics and the brutalities of Mr. Ian Paisley and his thugs. We will try to lend what support we can to them in their repudiation of Mr. Ian Paisley and all for which he stands. That is not enough, but it is something. It is high time that this should be said, clearly and unmistakably, and that is my own presumption for taking part in your Lordships' debate, recognising that there are many other things that must be done, but isolating in this particular speech of mine a factor in the present situation which is spurious, factitious and, above all, completely unrepresentative of that Christian faith of which I happen to be a representative to-night.
9.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I would also apologise for not having my name on the Speakers' List, but I felt I could not let this occasion go by without saying a few words to back up my noble friend Lord Rathcavan. Before doing that, I should like to agree heartily with the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am most cheered to hear his words regarding Mr. Paisley. I heartily agree with him.
My Lords, my family has had a very long connection with Ireland. I know I must not boast, but the first Governor for the British Crown, for Queen Elizabeth I, was my direct ancestor, Sir William Skeffington, and my family has provided Lord Chancellors and Speakers of the Irish House of Commons. I was brought up as a very young boy in the North of Ireland. I had to flee for my life there, with my home roaring up in flames and with chaos everywhere. Somebody was killed. The last thing I remember was the nursery cat, with its fur on fire, screaming. So, of course, I have not very pleasant memories of my childhood in Ireland. Nevertheless, I love the Irish, and I do not hold that against the Irish at all. I am afraid, however, that I do hold it against the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Reay—the Liberal Party—and I particularly hold it against Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister at that time; but we will not go into that now.
I should just like to say that the noble Lord who introduced this Question appears to forget that, after all, the North of Ireland Government has been elected on a full franchise. It is a universal franchise as regards General Elections. The noble Lord quoted the Government of Ireland Act. The North of Ireland Government has at present in local elections the same system of franchise that we had in this country before the Labour Government altered it, and I really think it would be—and I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would agree with me—quite incorrect, and an arbitrary act, to say to the independent North of Ireland Government, "You have to alter your franchise for local elections immediately, and everybody, irrespective of whether they are ratepayers or not, must have a vote". As has been said by one

153
or two noble Lords, we are extremely fortunate in having Captain Terence O'Neill as the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. He is the most moderate of men; and I personally think he has done wonders and will continue to do so. But if the British Government put pressure on the North of Ireland Government it will not help the position.
My Lords, it is true that there is discrimination. Of course there is. You have Protestant discrimination and you have Catholic discrimination, but, of course, you have more Protestant discrimination because there are far more Protestants in the North of Ireland. It is true that where the Protestants control the council probably more Protestants get houses. But there are other areas where the Catholics control councils, and in those areas—although it is true that there are far fewer councils controlled by the Catholics—the Catholics get more houses. I sympathise with the noble Earl behind me. He says that he finds that he has some slum property in Ireland. It must be a worry to him. I can truthfully say that I have no slum property in Ireland. I should like to point out also that the Catholic schools have an 80 per cent. grant from public funds. I am not saving anything against that. They practise all their Catholic teaching there—as, of course, they must be allowed to do—and they have this 80 per cent. grant from the Protestant Government. So one cannot really accuse the Northern Ireland Government of great discrimination. I am speaking from memory, but I think that that figure is correct.
Let us take the question of religion. In Londonderry about two or three weeks ago, before this great demonstration, an all-night service (I believe it lasted for 24 hours) praying for moderation, was held in both the Catholic Cathedral and the Protestant Cathedral. Protestants and Catholics went to each other's cathedrals. That would have been an impossible event 20 or 30 years ago. Great strides are being taken towards religious toleration in the North of Ireland. I am quite sure that religious discrimination will disappear among the younger generation, that it is only a matter of time. For instance, in Queen's University, Belfast, where three-quarters of the students are Protestant there is now a Catholic President of the Union.
154
This is a great step forward. I am quite sure that the young people do not hold with religious discrimination and that in the North of Ireland things are working in favour of toleration. It may take 20 years or more for religious discrimination to disappear—for we must allow time for the young people to grow up—but eventually it will disappear.
There is another matter on w lich I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan—though I hesitate to disagree with such a great authority on the North of Ireland and with one who is so much my superior in all matters appertaining to the North of Ireland. In regard to the present troubles, I do not think that a great number of the Roman Catholics—and perhaps even some of the Nationalists—who are standing out for full local franchise in the elections are bothered about Partition at the moment. But if that were to happen, if they do get full franchise in local government, I think that when we join the Common Market, as I presume one day we shall, the whole question of Partition will become a comparatively minor one. I do not think it will continue to raise much emotion.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government here will not try to force the Northern Ireland Government. I suppose tin t they could do so to a certain extent; but if they did, I am sure that it would only raise the temperature in the North of Ireland, and that would be very unfortunate. I am also quite sure that if the situation is allowed to run its course, and with the ability to present the Pope and the Queen, and other such dignitaries, on television in the poorest households in the land, people will not look on the Pope as a devil or the Queen as a tyrant. I am sure that, with education and television, this problem will be solved in time, and I therefore hope that no undue pressure will be put on the Ulster Government.
LORD REAY: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—he has talked a good deal about the great religious toleration—may I ask whether he is aware that a cousin of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, a Unionist Member of Parliament, was obliged to resign from the Orange Order because he attended a Catholic service during civic week in his constituency? Would he not think this

155
a rather poor example to give to the young to-day?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, no doubt it may be a poor example, but the Orange Order is not in complete control of everything that goes on in Northern Ireland. It is certainly still very strong, but it is by no means as strong as the noble Lord would appear to think.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I did not say that at all, but it is influential, surely.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, of course it is influential, but so are the Catholics.
9.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, because I realise that time is vital, but I should like to say one thing on the question of whether we are justified in allowing things to right themselves in time. I think that on this Irish question it is untrue to say that a whole history of Ireland has been given to-night—God knows! it could not be. That fact is shown very clearly by the name "Tory Party" which I looked up in the dictionary. I found that the definition of a Tory was:
"One of the dispossessed Irish who became outlaws, subsisting by plundering and killing the English settlers and soldiers; often applied to any Papist or Royalist in arms."
Since then, the pendulum has swung a very long way. That may have been said of the Tory Party a long time ago, but it does not apply now. I think that now it is rather the other way round: that they would be more inclined to support the English settlers and soldiers in plundering the dispossessed Irish.
In 1938, when I lived in Ireland, a Protestant English General, who was against the Catholics in almost every way, was so disgusted at not being allowed to include Roman Catholics in his Boy Scout troop that he founded a body called the Irish Association which now has only 420 members. Your Lordships can easily find out the purposes of this. The General was confronted by immense opposition to what he was doing. The efforts of the members are entirely directed to trying to bring people on either side of the Border together in a reasonable and rational way, forgetting about history. He has not been
156
very successful, in that it has taken a very long time. And I would express my complete support for the belief voiced by my noble friend Lord Reay that pressure must be put on—and indeed it has been put on by police in a riot—not violence, but pressure, in order to get any kind of action taken. I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will sympathise with the principle behind that, and I hope that we shall hear what action will be taken.
9.55 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I say a brief word from the Front Bench on this side of the House in this interesting and important debate. I listened with close attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in opening it, and if I may say so I thought that it lost some force by lack of impartiality. I felt that he did less than justice to the reform measures which Captain O'Neill has introduced in blowing upon them as he did. I think that they should be taken in good faith for the good which they will do. The reply made by my noble friend Lord Rathcavan really covered the whole field, and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides felt that this was a complete answer to the attack that was made.
My noble friend's speech brought out the immense complexity and difficulty of the situation in Northern Ireland. The minority Party there is in such a peculiar position. They do not want to govern Northern Ireland themselves. They want to abolish Northern Ireland as an independent entity, as a State. They want to join up with Eire. This is bound to make extra tensions, extra emotions and extra difficulties. Indeed, this point was made by my noble friend Lord Enniskillen in his very effective speech.
I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Rathcavan say that local government franchise should be dealt with, and this would certainly be my feeling. I was glad to hear him say, with his great knowledge of Northern Ireland, that it will be dealt with. It may not be tomorrow, but it is coming. These things have to take their time. One point which must be clear to all of us is that much of Irish life, in Northern Ireland and in Eire, is somewhere behind the standards of living here and they need time.

157
The only point on which I would part with my noble friend Lord Rathcavan is on his advice that troops might be brought in to assist in keeping order. I suppose that in extremis they may be, but as a rule the arrival of troops tends to inflame tempers rather than cool them. I feel, with my noble friend Lord Enniskillen, that everything depends on the police themselves having the strength and the popular support to keep order. I think that their record has been pretty good up to date, and I hope that they will continue to get support.
I do not pretend to know to what extent the noble Lord, Lord Soper, is right in thinking that the Government of Northern Ireland consider that Mr. Paisley has popular support. But I am interested to learn that there is a police summons out against him for his part in the Armagh disorders. This is evidence that they are not frightened to take action, if he is in the wrong. I have no doubt that when lie is taken to court he will be able to show whether or not he is right.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rathcavan is right in his point about industrial progress and that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be 100 per cent. with me there. Though my noble friend rightly referred to what the Northern Ireland Government have done in this respect, both Labour and Conservative Governments have subsidised this development, and this is, I am sure, the right road to strengthen, develop and liberate life in Northern Ireland. If poverty is relieved, the people educated, and conditions improved, many of these troubles will gradually disappear. So industrial progress is vital, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, is right in saying that nothing should be done which might deter industrialists from considering going there and taking advantage of the attractive financial inducements provided by the United Kingdom Government for them to go there. These, I hope, will go on.
I thought that we had two interesting speeches from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie and the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, both noble Lords obviously speaking with great knowledge. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, recommended that there should be pressure by Her Majesty's Government on Captain
158
O'Neill's Government in order to accelerate reform, and the noble Earl, Lord Enniskillen, recommended the reverse. For myself, I should think that the reverse view is right, especially in a situation of such complexity.
I do not pretend any intimate knowledge of the affairs of Northern Ireland, or indeed of Eire, but we have all learned a great deal, I think, in the last twenty years in the process of liquidating, as it has been, the Colonial Empire, and liberating these countries to become independent countries. On the whole, it has been successful when this country has taken the most generous tolerant and moderate line. I am sure it cannot be different in this case. I am sure that we should be patient and support moderation. It seems to me that Captain O'Neill's Government has a number of really worthwhile reforms already to its credit. It has done a great deal, and there is every reason to think that it will continue to move in this direction.
Moderation, which would ease these tensions, seems to me to be the right line. I fear that if the Government here put pressure on Captain O'Neill and his Government it will be bound to cause reactions in the Protestant camp over there and will increase, rather than reduce, tensions. We want the Protestant camp in Northern Ireland to feel confident that they are going the right way; that, broadly, responsible opinion here supports them, and that they are not going to lose by it. I think that tolerance, patience and a generous view here will help most, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will tell us that the policy of the Government will continue to be what it has been to date. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will tell us also the very limited constitutional position as the law now stands. But, for myself, I should hope that we may continue with the same policy that we have followed in the past, with every hope that the Constitution which we should like to see in Northern Ireland will progressively emerge.
10.4 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the House has reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for giving us this opportunity of discussing recent developments in the Northern Ireland Constitution which are of such importance to us all. I feel

159
that the debate has been a credit to your Lordships' House because of its moderate tone throughout. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, to display moderation is the best service that we can perform in the present circumstances.
The debate has been notable for a number of excellent speeches, and particularly those from my noble friend Lord Soper and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, both of whose speeches I hope, for different reasons, will be extensively reported in Ulster.
My Lords, I shall of necessity repeat some things that have already been said, but I hope you will feel that I can best serve the House if, in replying to the debate, I give, as it were, a balanced picture of the whole situation as the Government see it and begin by outlining the recent developments. There has been concern for some considerable time that progress in Northern Ireland towards the ending of bitter political and religious divisions in the community and the resulting injustices suffered by individual people was not proceeding fast enough. We were all agreed about that. The only thing we disagreed about was how fast it should go. This was despite the undoubted efforts of Captain O'Neill, which not only noble Lords but my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have commended on a number of occasions in another place, and indeed also the efforts of other leading figures in Ulster of differing views. These fears were intensified by the events in Londonderry over the weekend of October 5 and 6 when it became plain that the tensions in the community could no longer be contained without the grave risk of continuing civil disorder.
Your Lordships will not expect me to comment on the events themselves, but my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told the House on October 7 that the Prime Minister had invited the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to visit him for the purpose of discussions about the situation. At the same time, he pointed out that the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland was a matter for which the Parliament and Government of that place were solely responsible.
The discussions took place on November 4. The Prime Minister afterwards announced that they covered five main
160
areas; namely, the local government franchise; allocation of housing; the recent events in Londonderry; the Special Powers Acts, and the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner of Administration in Northern Ireland. It is, I believe, true to say that these are the questions on which concern has mostly been voiced and which lie behind the public expressions of feeling which have been made. The discussions between Prime Ministers were confidential. I have nothing to add to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said in another place in answer to Questions.
It is gratifying, however, that on November 22, a little more than two weeks after the discussions in London, the Northern Ireland Government announced their intention to take a number of steps in the areas covered by the November 4 discussions. They are these. First, it is intended that a points system on a readily understood and published basis will be introduced for the allocation of local authority housing. Secondly, there is to be legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament to appoint an Ombudsman. I understand it is the intention that he should deal, as the Ombudsman does here, with central Government activities, but consideration is also to be given—this is very important—to the need for effective machinery to investigate citizens' grievances in a wider area.
Thirdly the Northern Ireland Government propose to set up a Statutory Commission to implement the Londonderry Area Development Plan, which is designed to transform the economic and the social conditions of life in the city. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, gave some particulars. My Lords, I have been there. It is not propaganda. I have spoken to the industrialists who are starting these projects. Some of them are more than started: they are in operation, and there are literally thousands of jobs in the area which will be coming forward. It will, I believe, transform conditions there, and this proposal, I am glad to say, has commanded support from all quarters.
Fourth, the intention has been announced to abolish the company vote in local elections at an early date. The Northern Ireland Government have said they intend to review the present property-based local government franchise

161
once decisions have been taken on the reorganisation of local government which is at present under discussion between that Government and interested bodies.
Lastly, the Northern Ireland Government have accepted that such of the Special Powers legislation as conflict with the international obligations accepted by Her Majesty's Government—for example, under the European Human Rights Convention—should be withdrawn as soon as this can be done without undue hazard. At the same time, since the Government of Northern Ireland have the responsibility for maintaining law and order, they will feel free to resume the powers should this be essential in a state of public emergency. The Convention itself recognises that such circumstances may arise, and provides accordingly.
My Lords, these measures, and particularly the decisions to apply equitable standards in housing allocation by local authorities, the measures for the redress of grievances, including the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, and the decision to give early effect to the Londonderry plan are most welcome. They must be most welcome to all of us, whatever criticism there may be, whatever dissatisfaction there may be, perhaps, with the particular membership of a Commission, or with a points system. There are many different points systems for the allocation of council houses in this country, but let us please welcome these changes. Certainly they are desirable steps on the way forward, if we put it no higher than that, and it is the hope of Her Majesty's Government that the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland will take urgent action to give effect to these reforms and that they may be carried out in an atmosphere of tranquillity in the Province.
But, without in any way minimising their value—and I do not, because I know something of the conditions—your Lordships will note that the measures now proposed hold out no promise of implementing the principle of "one man, one vote"; namely, giving all adults the local government vote. That principle lies at the heart of citizens' rights and it is a matter which will need to be considered when the discussions which began on November 4 between the Prime Ministers are resumed.
162
Your Lordships will be aware that under the Government of Ireland Act there is a division of executive responsibility between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. Stormont has responsibility for the so-called "transferred" matters which, broadly speaking, are matters dealt with in Ulster, while we have responsibility for affairs that are dealt with on a United Kingdom basis. All the five subjects which the Prime Minister discussed with Captain O'Neill on November 4 are "transferred" matters, which under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 have been placed within the competence of the Government of Northern Ireland. Subject to the rules of order, your Lordships are free to debate any Motion before you, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has exercised his undoubted right to raise questions and ask for answers, and even to urge that unless the Government of Northern Ireland takes action to eliminate discrimination against religious and political minorities Her Majesty's Government should take appropriate action which could (as he indicated) in the last resort mean using the reserved powers to legislate under Section 75 of the 1920 Act.
You, my Lords, are free to debate this, but I am not. I must remind you that as a Minister of Her Majesty's Government I cannot answer questions on matters for which this Government have no executive responsibility. In other words, I cannot answer the questions put to me to-night on matters on which I am not answerable to Parliament because they are transferred matters which are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. One example of this is what happened in Armagh last weekend, which has been so widely reported in the Press. I refrain from making any comment on this—which otherwise I might be tempted to do—for, as your Lordships will appreciate, certain aspects of those events are now before the courts in Northern Ireland. But, in any case, responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the Province rests on the Government of Northern Ireland, and they have the necessary powers. I leave it at that.
There are some things that I would say, because since, under the Home Secretary, I am the Minister with special

163
responsibility for Northern Ireland, and because I have many friends there of widely different views and persuasion, I know as much as most people about the present situation. And since we have all been talking about our Irish ancestry, may I say that I am of course Irish, with an Irish family name.
The first thing I want to say is that extreme language from this House and from this country will not help. That is why I felt the debate has been such a credit to this House. And I whole-heartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, that the great majority of the people of Ulster desire a peaceful solution of the present disputes. Let there be no manner of doubt about that. No-one who has been there can have any doubt about it. It is the extremists who are the enemies of peace. Of course they receive the most publicity and, as I know from my correspondence (and many of them write to me), and also from their public utterances and deeds, their fanaticism is almost beyond belief, and certainly beyond reason. They are prepared to use violence to deny essential justice and freedom to others. They are the main obstacle to a speedy and satisfactory settlement of those matters which we in this House agree, and we have agreed to-night, must be settled. And we can best serve the cause of peace, reason and justice in Northern Ireland by supporting the efforts of those who are genuinely working to achieve them. And it is not only people in the Unionist Party who are working to achieve that; I know that others are, too.
One thing I must say, with the greatest firmness and clarity that I can command. Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Wales or Scotland; and even the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, in his speech, it seemed to me, seemed to forget that when he was talking about paying the same taxes. Of course you pay the same taxes; you are part of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned a figure of some £50 to £100 million which, as he put it, went back in the form of subsidies. It is not so much a question of subsidies. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it happens that it is a development area; and therefore of
164
course in some respects more money flows there. So I hope we shall not be having again from an Ulsterman this argument that seems to suggest that even he is thinking that Ulster is not part of the United Kingdom. They are our people, and that fact is fundamental to the relations between us.
In case any misapprehension may still linger, particularly following some recent remarks in the Dail, let me remind your Lordships of the recent reaffirmation by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of the pledge given by Mr. Attlee (as he then was) in 1948 and 1949, which is enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949; and because of that, despite what has been said by so many noble Lords to-night about the basis of the problem, I say that the Border is not in issue. We are all members of one nation, with a common heritage, and I well know the pride that Ulster takes in that. But pride and unity are based on more than a Union Jack, and if we are to lay just claim to unity in this United Kingdom we must share common standards and fundamental principles of good government.
This is by no means a Party issue, as we have shown to-night. I am not arguing for slavish imitation of the policies of one Party or another—whichever happens to be in power. I am arguing for the need for general acceptance in all parts of the United Kingdom, which I say clearly includes Ulster, of the principles of fairness and justice. It is the partial lack of that acceptance in Northern Ireland which has given rise to the tense situation which has prevailed over the last few months. It is a disappointment to me, and I am sure to many of your Lordships, that the Northern Ireland Government have not yet announced a firm intention to introduce a universal adult franchise for local elections. It is only when the will and voice of reasonable men on all sides can find democratic expression in every aspect of life that reason and goodwill can banish bigotry and extremism. We must work together with Ulster for uninterrupted progress, with a good hope for and a shared belief in the future peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.