Sitting of 30 May 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (B) Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 7th June.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Officers (Engineering Degrees)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what proportion of the officers in the technical, general duties and other branches, respectively, have university degrees in engineering or generally accepted professional equivalents.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): The proportion, including National Service officers, is 10 per cent. in the technical branch, 7 per cent. in the education branch and 83 per cent. in the airfield construction branch. No central record is kept of the number of officers in other branches who possess these qualifications.
    Mr. de Freitas: However one looks at these figures—and they are difficult at first sight—is the proportion not very low indeed for the technical branch? In view of this fact, what is the Secretary of State going to do to increase the proportion?
    Mr. Birch: I quite agree that the Royal Air Force is becoming an increasingly technical service. It was for that reason that my predecessor instituted the technical cadet scheme, and I am glad to say that it is now going very well. I gave some account of it in the debate on the Air Estimates.

    Education Branch (Officers' Promotions)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air (1) how many wing commanders and above, now serving in the Royal Air Force education branch, could still be serving in twelve years' time; and how many vacancies in those ranks there are likely to be available during that period for those who are now squadron leaders;
    (2) how many squadron leaders in the education branch of the Royal Air Force aged between 37 and 43 years and who were recruited between 1947 and 1950 and attained the rank of squadron leader between 1950 and 1954, will have to retire at the maximum age of 53 years without further promotion;
    (3) what steps are being taken to inform squadron leaders of the education branch of the Royal Air Force that they have little prospect of promotion; and what facilities are being afforded to them for early retirement to pursue their careers elsewhere.
    Mr. Birch: Eighteen wing commanders and above in the Royal Air Force education branch could be serving in twelve years' time, and if establishments and other factors affecting promotion prospects remained unchanged there would be 36 wing commander vacancies during that period. Up to now we have been able to maintain a reasonable rate of promotions from squadron leader in the branch, and we are considering what can be done to preserve this position.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these officers with the very highest qualifications were greatly misled when they joined this Service? They were told that the prospects of promotion to wing commander were statistically 50–50, and actually greater than that. They are now greatly disappointed and very disgruntled at finding that they will be there for another eleven years without having any hope whatsoever of promotion.
    Mr. Birch: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's contention that these officers were misled. He will realise that promotion to wing commander is by appointment and by no means all the officers of the Royal Air Force, or the equivalents in the other Services, reach that rank.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is mistaken in making that statement? These officers were misled. I have definite evidence to that effect. They were told that their prospects of promotion were very good, but they now find that they are virtually non-existent.
    Mr. Birch: I shall be very happy to go into that point with my hon. Friend if he likes to see me about it.

    Intelligence Operations
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make changes in the Directorate of Air Intelligence to ensure that he is consulted before intelligence operations are undertaken which have political implications.
    Mr. Birch: I do not consider changes to be necessary.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since two weeks ago the Secretary of State told the House that he had not made any changes recently, and is not making them now, can we take it that the organisation of Air Intelligence is so different from that of Naval Intelligence that any incident such as we had recently is, I cannot say impossible, but very unlikely?
    Mr. Birch: I am responsible for the organisation of my own Department, and upon taking over I went through all the branches, and I am confident that the organisation of the Air Ministry is good in this branch.

    Canberra and Valiant Aircraft
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Air the reasons for the grounding of the Canberra and Valiant aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Birch: Faults have occurred in the electrical system which controls the tailplane actuator in the Canberra, and two Marks have been grounded while modifications are made. Flying of the Valiant was suspended as a precautionary measure after one of these aircraft had 212
    crashed on 11th May. Certain modifications are being made to the electrical wiring system of the aircraft. Both Canberras and Valiants are returning to flying as they are modified. All Valiants in Bomber Command are likely to have been modified by the end of this week.

    Foreign Contracts (Fair Wages Clause)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent he ensures the application of the fair wages clause in relation to equipment ordered from foreign sources.
    Mr. Birch: The Air Ministry does not normally order equipment direct from foreign sources, but if the necessity should arise a fair wages clause would be included in the contracts.
    Mr. Beswick: Is that not in direct contradiction to the information which the right hon. Gentleman gave in a letter about the contract recently awarded to a foreign firm, where there had been an invitation to tender and where the foreign firm undercut the British firm? There were absolutely no means of ensuring that the fair wages clause was observed by the foreign firm concerned.
    Mr. Birch: I understand that this order was not placed direct. It was placed through a British agent. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that it is extremely difficult to enforce a fair wages clause in a foreign country.
    Mr. Beswick: What is the purpose of the fair wages clause if the onus is placed on the British firm to observe it and if it is possible for a foreign firm, whether the goods are brought in directly or indirectly by merchants, to undercut the British producer? Surely that is a point that ought to be looked into.
    Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward the high protectionist argument.
    Mr. de Freitas: What is the purpose of having the fair wages clause if it is not Government policy to enforce it?
    Mr. Birch: It is Government policy, and if it came to our notice that any firm had acted in flagrant breach of it, such a firm would not get another contract, but the hon. Gentleman will see that it is not an easy matter to enforce.

    Vulcan and Victor Bombers
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects the first Vulcan and Victor bomber squadrons to be formed.
    Mr. Birch: The Vulcan will enter R.A.F. service in the next week or so. I cannot yet give a firm date for the Victor.
    Mr. Beswick: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the date given and the date which he cannot give compare with the original estimate of when these machines would be in service?
    Mr. Birch: All I can say is that since I took office things are more or less up to date. At the time of the Air Estimates we expected the Vulcan to get C.A. release this month, and it will get it.
    Mr. Beswick: From the time of ordering to the time of being in service these machines are taking three or four years longer compared with Russian and American production. Is the Minister satisfied with that?
    Mr. Birch: No one is ever satisfied with the number of aeroplanes and the time in which one gets them, but I think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are grossly exaggerated.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that had these aeroplanes been ordered earlier than four years ago they might have been in the squadrons, and that the party opposite must take the blame for it?
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter from the angle that some of the firms involved are far too small to have economic and efficient production?

    Air Trooping
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will discuss with the nationalised air corporations a plan by which passenger aircraft could be jointly owned by the Royal Air Force and the corporations and used for commercial carriage of passengers on schedule services during the months when passenger space is highly sought after and for air trooping of Service men and their families in the other months.
    Mr. Birch: No, Sir. Trooping continues throughout the year and our programme could not be related to the seasonal demands of holiday traffic.
    Mr. de Freitas: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose that air trooping should be arranged so that Service families are carried in modern aircraft? Unless there is some special scheme, how is that to be done and how are the operators to get the aircraft?
    Mr. Birch: That is a different Question and one which was answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air on the Whitsun Adjournment.

  ROADS

    A.1 Schemes
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider providing dual-carriageways at those places where it is now proposed to widen A.1 between London and Newcastle.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the 23 schemes on A.1 each costing over £100,000; of these, 22 provide for dual carriageways. These schemes when completed will transform A.1 into a major North-South road link designed to cope with modern traffic conditions.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While we are waiting for the motorway to be built to the North, would it not be a good thing to make the A.1 a complete dual carriageway right through?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree that we ought to press on and try to make, as far as we can, the A.1 a dual carriageway North-South highway. I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the details which I am circulating he will see that we are going a long way towards doing that in the present scheme.
    Mr. Jeger: Would the Minister put alongside each of those schemes the approximate date of starting the work?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into that.
    Following is the list of schemes on A.1, each costing over £100,000, as announced last year for authorisation in the years 1955-56 to 1958-59:

    1. Page Street to Mill Hill, Middlesex; widening.

    2. Between Apex Corner and S. Mimms Bypass, in Middlesex; widening.

    3. Between A.411 and Dyrham Park, Herts; widening.

    4. Biggleswade By-pass, Bedfordshire.

    5. Sandy to A.428, Bedfordshire; widening.

    6. Alconbury Hill to Woolpack Cross Roads, Hunts; widening.

    7. Woolpack Cross Roads to Norman Cross, Hunts; widening.

    8. Norman Cross to Water Newton By-pass, Hunts; widening.

    9. Wansford-Water Newton By-pass, Hunts.

    10. Wansford Bridge to Stamford boundary, Soke of Peterborough; widening.

    11. Colsterworth Diversion, Kesteven.

    12. Grantham By-pass, Kesteven.

    13. East Retford By-pass, Notts. (Elkersley By-pass to Five Lane End); widening.

    14. East Retford By-pass, Notts. (Five Lanes End to north of Checkerhouse); widening.

    15. Doncaster By-pass, Notts. and W. Riding.

    16. Wetherby By-pass, W. Riding.

    17. Between Wetherby and Allerton Station, W. Riding; widening.

    18. Allerton Station (Hopperton) By-pass, W. Riding.

    19. Between Leeming and Catterick, N. Riding; widening.

    20. Catterick By-pass, N. Riding.

    21. Browney Bridge to Farewell Hall, Durham; widening.

    22. Gosforth to Gosforth Park, Northumberland; widening.

    23. Stamford Inner Relief Road (Single 33 ft. carriageway).

    A.12 Improvements, Gun Hill
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the widening and realignment of A.12 at Gun Hill.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The necessary land has been acquired and it is hoped to carry out the work in the near future.
    Mr. Stokes: That may be, but is the alteration to which the Minister refers an alteration which means taking four yards off the corner, because, if so, will he look at it again, as the general result will be that the vision of drivers of vehicles will be more rather than less
    216
    obscured—they will see more of the ends of the cottages and less of the bridge?
    Mr. Molson: I am aware that the local authority which agreed to undertake this work as our agent has now some doubts about the matter, but I am not prepared to say what the position will be. We will certainly give consideration to the views of the local authority on the subject.
    Mr. Stokes: When the Minister looks at it, will he realise that the only possible constructive alternative is to take a short cut across the corner from the bottom of Gun Hill to the top, leaving out the present point, and that at the present time the bottom of the hill is almost the worst place in East Anglia? It has almost ten times as many accidents as any other place.
    Mr. Molson: I do not think it would be advantageous if I pursued an argument about this site at Question Time.

    Intersections (Traffic Congestion)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take to prevent long streams of traffic in streets like Oxford Street and Euston Road being brought to a standstill across intersecting streets and blocking traffic in them.
    Mr. Molson: This effect is unavoidable in certain traffic conditions. The police can and do help, but considerate drivers will not proceed across an intersection if they can see that they will not be able to clear it.
    Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say what is to happen to drivers who do not do what he suggests? Is it not a case for making a law about this as was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) before the Easter Recess, and will my hon. Friend look into it to see if it cannot be included in the present Road Traffic Bill?
    Mr. Molson: I have gone into this matter and have written to each of the hon. Members who took part in the Adjournment debate on this subject. We entirely agree, of course, that it is a serious traffic problem, but it is not at all clear that legislation would be the best way of dealing with it. Such legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce, and it might well be that it would slow down traffic more than is the case at the present time.

    Oxford Circus
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans exist for improving the flow of traffic at Oxford Circus.
    Mr. Molson: No long-term plan for the improvement of Oxford Circus is included in the development plan of the London County Council. We have, however, been considering prohibiting all right-hand turns at Oxford Circus. The Road Research Laboratory at our request has considered this proposal and has prepared a report which we have circulated to the local authorities, the police and the London Transport Executive, but their views have not all as yet been received.
    Mr. Russell: While that plan will obviously do something to ease the congestion, is the Minister not aware that it does not eliminate the cross traffic? What proposal has he for achieving that, bearing in mind that there is a London Transport scheme now to reconstruct Oxford Circus station in such a way that it will be impossible in the future to put an underpass there, and will he give that serious consideration?
    Mr. Molson: We are giving this matter careful consideration, and we are also considering the possibility of introducing one-way traffic there, but so far we have not been able to arrive at any proposals which are really likely to bring about any substantial improvement. I am afraid that we have to face the fact that the volume of traffic at a focal point of that kind really makes it impossible to bring about any very free movement of traffic.
    Mr. Sharples: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has given up the idea entirely of building an underpass at this important intersection?
    Mr. Molson: I have not given up the idea because I have never had it.

    Speed Limit
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many Metropolitan local authorities with roads for which a 40-miles-per-hour speed limit is proposed have agreed thereto.
    Mr. Watkinson: I wrote to local authorities on 10th May asking for comments, but I have not yet received any.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As there is obviously lack of enthusiasm for this increased speed limit, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the majority of local authorities concerned are opposed to it he will abandon this rather crazy idea?
    Mr. Watkinson: No. On the question of any lack of enthusiasm, the local authorities were given to 30th June in which to compose their replies, and that is no doubt the reason I have not yet received them.

    A.34, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now approve final plans for the stretch of the Winchester-Preston trunk road A.34, which passes through the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, so as to enable the local authority to give decisions on the future development of sites adjacent to the road in Goose Street, Lower Street, Holborn, and Upper Green.
    Mr. Watkinson: Because of the large increase in traffic in recent years I have asked my agent authority, the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, to consider the possibility of providing dual carriageways on this road. Until these investigations have been completed, I am unable to reach a final decision on this matter.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister ask his officers to treat this matter with the greatest urgency? Is he aware that this is not only a great traffic problem, but also means that a lot of important and valuable sites on either side of this road are sterilised until the plans for the trunk road are complete. and that this is a very serious matter for the borough council?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. I will certainly do what I can with my officials, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also consult the members of his own local authority and impress upon them the necessity of getting on with the planning. If we can both do that, we may get a fairly quick decision.

    Bridge, Twickenham
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a decision has now been made over the rebuilding and widening of London Road railway bridge, Twickenham.
    Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has invited the Middlesex County Council to submit a scheme for approval in the current financial year.

  TRANSPORT

    Cycle Racing (Road Safety)
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallettasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet considered the Report of the Committee on Road Safety of January, 1954, on massed-start cycle racing; whether the conditions outlined in paragraph 21 of the Report have yet been met; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has considered this Report, and also studied the further views of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, who considered the matter again in January last. He proposes to seek powers to deal with this matter in the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will give satisfaction not only to the police but also to the responsible cycling clubs, whose only wish is to co-operate with the authorities to see that this sport may be continued in safety and without inconvenience to other road users?
    Mr. Molson: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for what he has said, and I think it will be approved also by all those who have road safety at heart.

    Lighting-up Times
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now alter lighting-up time in the summer to half-an-hour instead of one hour after sunset.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have this matter under consideration.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that lighting-up time today is five minutes after 10 p.m. and that if he is in the Chamber at that time, as I expect he will be, and if he will look out of the window, he will see that it is dead dark? Is this not rather dangerous? Ought not lighting-up time to be brought back to half-an-hour before sunset?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the suggestion contained in the Question is well worthy of serious consideration, and I am giving that consideration to it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman ask motorists when visibility is bad even in so-called hours of daylight to switch on their lights?
    Mr. Watkinson: I gave an answer to a similar Question a few days ago, and it is also in the Highway Code.

    Accidents (Fatigue)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) in the cases of accidents involving transport vehicles, what record he keeps of cases in which drivers have been driving excessive hours beyond those permitted by law;
    (2) how many accidents occur to drivers who have been driving excessive hours.
    Mr. Watkinson: The accident records kept by my Department do not show whether the drivers involved have driven an excessive number of hours, but they do indicate whether fatigue is considered by the police to have been a factor. Of 216,681 accidents in 1955 which resulted in personal injury, the police considered that fatigue was a factor in 360, of which 65 involved commercial vehicles.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that rather grave allegations have been made that drivers have driven for so long on the road that they are often asleep at the wheel and cause great danger to other transport drivers on the same road? Would he look into the allegations made to the Scottish Trades Union Congress this year by the transport unions of some very grave charges of this kind, and would he consider keeping records of the number of hours driven, because if a person has been driving for twenty-two hours there is a fair assumption that he is fatigued, even if the police do not notice it?
    Mr. Watkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman has any specific cases, I should like to hear of them. There is not, so far as I can find out, any general indication in my Department that this practice is widespread, and there is a penalty, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, under the Road Traffic Act if the driver of the vehicle is allowed to drive. excessive hours.
    Mr. Woodburn: Allegations were made and substantiated some time ago that drivers may drive for eleven hours for one employer and then switch to another employer and drive for eleven hours, and, without in some way actually breaking the law, they manage to drive for twenty-two hours.
    Mr. Watkinson: I should like to have details of any case of that kind.

  SHIPPING

    Oil Pollution (Convention)
    Sir H. Roperasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made towards the ratification by other countries of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Governments of Mexico and Sweden have recently ratified the Convention, and I understand that a number of other countries have taken, or are taking, powers to enable them to do so.
    Sir H. Roper: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the rate of progress in the ratifications of this Convention? He will be mindful that another conference is to be held before May of next year. Would he consider what steps should be taken now to ensure the success of that conference?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the first thing to do is to get as many ratifications as we can. I am certainly not satisfied with the present rate, and I will see if there is anything I can do to speed it up, but I doubt if there is.

    Trawlers (Arctic Ice Conditions)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation
    222
    assigning Ministerial responsibility for the general design of commercial ships and, in particular, for safeguarding them from the effects of ice on their stability.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. I do not think it would be right for the Government to assume control over the general design of commercial ships. The problem of the effects of ice on the stability of fishing vessels is, as my hon, Friend indicated during the recent debate on this subject, best left for solution by the owners and builders in consultation with my Department as necessary.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were two modern trawlers from the Humber lost with all hands this year; that there are means now at any rate of minimising this danger; that these means have been adopted by some foreign trawlers—some of them even built in this country—and yet our own trawler owners have not yet adopted them; and would it not be sensible to see that some Minister is made responsible for ensuring that there is a minimum standard of safety for trawlers which have to work in the Arctic?
    Mr. Watkinson: I read very carefully the remarks of the hon. Gentleman in the Adjournment debate, and I also read very fully the reply given by my hon. Friend, who answered the general point as to whether my Ministry and the Government were doing all that they could to see that this most tragic happening of the sudden icing up of trawlers in Arctic waters is prevented as far as possible.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statutory enforcement of the Plimsol line which prevents vessels being overloaded under the waterline is not dissimilar in principle from allowing the overloading of vessels over the waterline by encrustations of ice, and should not similar statutory action apply to them, as this endangers human life?
    Mr. Watkinson: This is a very technical and difficult matter, and there is no simple solution. The only long-term solution is for designers and owners of these vessels to work closely with my Ministry, whose services are always available, to try slowly to improve the design against the known difficulties.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Western Germany (Supply of Arms)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what arms are being supplied to Western Germany from the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the right hon. Gentleman on 24th April, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to depart from the normal practice of refusing to disclose details of current exports of military equipment to foreign countries.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of that answer, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any arms have been sent to Western Germany? Surely he can answer that. At the same time, if arms have been sent, as I suspect that they have, and as he well knows, would he tell us whether Western Germany is paying for them and if an arrangement was made for them to be sent before a financial agreement was reached about the cost of our troops in Western Germany?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is another question. The moment one starts answering the Question one starts to deviate from the principle, and I see no advantage in that.
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman surely misunderstood the point I was making. The question whether arms have been sent to foreign countries has been answered in the House. For example, an answer has been given about whether arms have been sent to Egypt. I want to know whether arms have been sent to Western Germany. Reports have appeared in the Press that the United States has sent arms to Germany, and surely he can say whether we have done the same.
    Sir W. Monckton: The question that I have been asked to answer is "what arms?" and that is the Question that I cannot answer. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to put down the other question, I will consider it.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. It so happens that the Question I originally sought to address to the right hon. and learned Gentleman was framed in this
    224
    fashion: "whether arms have been sent to Germany," and I was advised by the Clerk at the Table that it would be better to substitute the word "what".
    Mr. Speaker: I must look into that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now ask Question No. 28.

    National Service
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the reduction in Soviet armed forces, he will now reduce the length of National Service.
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Minister of Defence what review of National Service is proposed following the recent pay increases in the Services and the reduction of Soviet forces; and when Her Majesty's Government will reduce the period of National Service.
    Sir W. Monckton: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 17th May. I have no further statement to make at present on National Service policy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a purely negative reply which takes us nowhere. In view of the gesture by the Soviet Union, surely it would be advisable for us to make a similar gesture, in addition to what has already been done by the contemplated cut in the Forces. Surely now is the time to say to the world at large that we are responding to this gesture by reducing the period of National Service. Is it not contemplated by the Government quite seriously that before long they will make a cut?
    Sir W. Monckton: The answer to that is, first of all, that if we are to consider our policy on National Service, it is very desirable—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself drew attention to this on 20th April—that we should see what has been the effect of the increases in pay on the numbers recruited and the period for which people take on. That is one of the things at which we must look. It would be most undesirable to make a general statement of National Service policy until we are aware of the relevant factors. Unlike what may be said of other people, this country is already in the process of taking substantial steps to reduce its armed forces.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Whatever cuts the Soviet Union may or may not have made in their armed forces, is it not a fact that today they retain two years' national service for their army?
    Mr. Stokes: Does not the Minister recollect that on 15th February he told me that he hoped that National Service would be ended long before the next General Election and that his statement was made long before the announcement of the reduction in the Russian armed forces? Surely he is now able to say that he intends to do something about it, regardless of what the Russians do. He need not shelter behind that at all.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am not sheltering behind hopes. I was very careful on that occasion to qualify my statement when the opportunity was given me. All I am saying now is that I am sure that this is not the moment for a pronouncement on National Service.
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will release from National Service all sons of widowed mothers.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. It would be unfair automatically to exempt men in these circumstances from National Service. I am satisfied, however, that sympathetic consideration is given to appeals for release on compassionate grounds where continuance of National Service would cause grave hardship.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that some National Service men who are the bread-winners for seven or eight young children are being refused release? Will he, on humanitarian grounds alone, consider releasing at least those men who are the mainstays of widows with one or more young children particularly, as they do in America?
    Sir W. Monckton: Perhaps the hon. Member will send to the Ministers responsible for the Service Departments concerned the cases which he has in mind. I would only say that I still think it would be wrong to take a group, such as the sons of widowed mothers, and say that that group, where the hardship may not in all cases be as great as in some other cases, should be automatically exempted.
    Mr. G. Thomas: While appreciating the force of the Minister's argument, may
    226
    I ask him to bear in mind that there is room for greater flexibility in the tribunals which test these cases of hardship, because there is a limit beyond which they are not allowed to go and cases of extreme hardship are caused by the present system?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think we are now dealing with the situation at a later stage. We are not considering exemption from National Service, or I should not be answering the Question. We are considering the release of those who have been called up.

    Aircraft and Guided Missiles (Production)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied with arrangements made for the production of aircraft and in particular with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Supply and Air Ministry for the production of aircraft and guided missiles; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir W. Monckton: The problems with which we have been faced have arisen mainly in the later stages of development. The production of aircraft has in general been proceeding satisfactorily.
    The action to improve matters announced in the White Paper on Supply of Military Aircraft issued in February. 1955, and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in the recent Defence Debate is already beginning to bear fruit. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that during that debate I said that I was myself inquiring into these and related matters. I shall tell the House in due course what conclusions I reach; all that I would say for the moment is that I am making progress.
    Development and production of guided missiles are proceeding reasonably well, though with entirely new weapons of this kind there are always liable to be unexpected hitches.
    I have found that the co-ordination between the Ministry of Supply and the Air Ministry is good, and I do not think that any failure in this respect has contributed materially to our problems.
    Mr. Stokes: I understood the Minister to say in the early part of his reply that he was comparatively satisfied. How can he possibly say such a thing in view of

    227
    the statements made in the Defence debate on 27th and 28th February? Is he not aware that the hopeless muddle and losses which have been incurred in the supply of aircraft are largely due to the inadequate arrangements in the aircraft industry itself? How does he expect units of less than 15,000 men to produce large bombers? What does he intend to do about it?
    Sir W. Monckton: The Question asked about the production of aircraft, and particularly about administrative arrangements between the two Ministries. That was the side which was comparatively good. As to the aircraft industry itself, that is one of the matters into which I am looking, and I will inform the House when I have reached my conclusions.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister tell me who takes the decision on major issues where there are disputes between various Services on aircraft supply? Does he do it himself or who is the responsible authority?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am never sure how far I am allowed to go in saying what are the organs of the Government in which I serve, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Committees.
    Mr. Shinwell: In this connection will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take note of what is happening in the United States about the production of guided missiles and ballistic rockets and the disputes between the Air Force and the Army, and I also believe the Navy, in the United States? In order to avoid any similar confusion, will he effect a greater measure of co-ordination and bring the whole subject under one head?
    Sir W. Monckton: I sympathise very much with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have, of course, been informed of and am in touch with difficulties which have been experienced in America, and I am sympathetic to the idea of more co-ordination and more power here.

    Forces, Germany (Costs)
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made in discussions with the West German Government on the cost of British troops in Germany.
    Sir W. Monckton: Negotiations are progressing, but it would be premature for me to say anything more at the present moment. I will make a statement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Jay: Does this mean that we can definitely count on receiving the £50 million from Germany which the Chancellor has included in his Budget this year?
    Sir W. Monckton: It only means that before I can answer the Question I must wait, but I will answer it as soon as I get the information.
    Mr. Strachey: Does the Minister agree that it was rather rash to let our derequisitioning powers lapse and make other concessions of that sort before the question of the cost had been settled with the German Government?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is a different question.

    Recruitment Figures
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement in regard to recruiting figures since the recent pay increases in the Services.
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Minister of Defence what improvements in recruiting have followed the recent pay increases in the Services; and whether he will now make a statement.
    Sir W. Monckton: The new rates of pay came into effect on 1st April and we now have firm recruiting figures for that month. They indicate a definite improvement over the corresponding period for last year but it would be premature to draw any conclusions from them at this stage. I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the recent increases in pay are part of an overall plan which has as its objective the ultimate abolition of National Service and the reliance on professional Regular Forces?
    Sir W. Monckton: The object was to try to get the Regular Forces up to the appropriate strength at which they would be most efficient for our purpose, and if, as a result, we were able to dispense with National Service in whole or in part, it would be satisfactory to all sides of the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the figures indicate any improvement in the longer-term engagements, which is, after all, the vital consideration?
    Sir W. Monckton: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a vital consideration—even more vital than the number of new recruits. It is more difficult to give precise figures, but there is an improvement, and I hope in the course of a few days to be able to give some figures.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the figures, both as to recruitment and as to continuance in the Services, are made readily available to hon. Members at convenient regular intervals?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am taking steps to do that about recruitment, but I ask to be excused from making a definite promise about the other aspect, because it is a more difficult thing to promise in advance.

    —

    April, 1955

    April, 1956

    Royal Navy

    288

    857

    Army

    2,811

    3,800

    Royal Air Force

    1,520

    1,808

    4,619

    6,465

    Soviet Air Force
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Defence the estimated front-line aircraft strength of the Soviet Air Force: and the estimated reduction in aircraft following the announced reduction of three aircraft divisions.
    Sir W. Monckton: The front-line aircraft strength of the Soviet Air Forces is estimated to be about 20,000. A reduction by three aircraft divisions might amount to about 300 aircraft.
    Mr. Henderson: Could the Minister state the relative front-line strength of fighters and bombers and state to what extent the proposed reduction refers to those two categories of planes?
    Sir W. Monckton: It has never been the practice, on security grounds, to sub-divide the total by types of aircraft, and I should not like to depart from that.

    BRITISH FIRMS (ARAB COUNTRIES' BOYCOTT)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is aware that members of the staffs of foreign Embassies and Legations in London have made inquiries of British firms designed to discover the race and religion of their workers, managers, directors and shareholders; and whether he will inform Ambassadors and Ministers of foreign countries in London that Her Majesty's Government will take a serious view of such actions by members of their staffs;
    (2) whether he is aware that British firms are liable to be boycotted by Arab countries if they invest in an Israeli concern; and what steps he proposes to take to defeat such boycotts.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that threats against firms and even limited liability companies in Great Britain the members or shareholders of which are of the Jewish faith are being intensified both directly and indirectly through other countries; and whether he will bring the position to the attention of the United Nations for action, as being contrary to its Charter.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the diplomatic representatives of Her Majesty's Government are only intervening in cases of threatened or actual boycott by Arab countries of British firms trading with Israel where in the judgment of those representatives the information of the Arab Central Boycott Committee on which the boycott is based is false.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The views of Her Majesty's Government on this boycott have been frequently stated and representations have been made to the Governments concerned. I am aware that there have been new developments, and action has been taken in individual cases. I should be grateful if hon. Members would send me confidentially any further information about specific cases. I think this method may well be the more effective way of protecting British interests.
    Mr. Robinson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will accept my assurance that these things have been going on and that anti-semitic activities are being carried on in London by the Embassies of the Arab countries? I shall certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the information for which he has asked.
    Mr. Janner: Could the right hon. Gentleman not inquire into this matter and see whether anything can be done by one of the bodies in the United Nations in order that information available can be collected? It appears to be a very serious infringement of the Charter when there is definitely a decided attack being made upon nationals, not only of our country but of other countries, to prevent them from trading and from exercising ordinary human rights?
    Mr. Lloyd: One of the difficulties, of course, is to compel a Government to trade with someone with whom the Government does not want to trade. The best method is not too much ventilation of the matter. If I can be given information about specific cases, I am more likely to get results if I am allowed to deal with the matter in that way.
    Sir L. Plummer: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade about an answer that has been given from the Middle East Department of the Board of Trade to the effect that diplomatic representatives of Her Majesty's Government are intervening only in cases where the information of the Central Arab Boycott Committee is false? This clearly means that our representatives abroad are not intervening where the legitimate rights of British exporters are concerned. Would the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the President of the Board of Trade that stronger action than this should be taken by his Department?
    Mr. Lloyd: My impression was that what the hon. Gentleman has said is not correct, but in view of the answer which he says he received, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Are there any cases where firms have given this information to the Embassies which inquired?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should want to have notice of that question.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
    232
    he will make representations to the Government of the United States of America that Kamel Abdel Rahim, permanent representative of the Yemen to the United Nations, directs the Arab Boycott Committee's actions against British firms trading with Israel from the Arab Information Centre, 445, Park Avenue, New York City; and whether he will ask the United States Government to take the necessary steps to stop this anti-British activity.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no information to this effect. If the hon. Gentleman will send me his evidence, I will consider the matter further.
    Mr. Robinson: Would the Foreign Secretary not agree that this is a wholly inappropriate activity on the part of a representative of the United Nations and is his answer that this Arab information Centre has an income of 4 million dollars a year, mainly acquired from American oil companies? If he can confirm those facts, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman raise the matter with the United States Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the facts and the connection of this particular individual with what the hon. Member has said, I will certainly look into the matter.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British shipping passing through the Suez Canal or the Strait of Tiran on the way to or from Israel is liable to be black-listed by Arab countries; that this black-listing results in such ships being denied normal port facilities, pilotage, and fresh water in Arab ports; and what steps he proposes to take to protect British shipping from such hostile action.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Several Arab countries have for some time imposed restrictions on merchant ships of all nationalities which have traded with Israel. These restrictions include the denial of normal port facilities. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not accept the legality of the Arab blockade of Israel. But we believe, and have constantly maintained, that the best way to bring the restrictions to an end is to work for a general settlement of the Arab Israel dispute.
    Sir L. Plummer: Nevertheless the boycott continues. Would it not be in the best interests of everybody concerned if Her Majesty's Government were to take the shipping lines into conference with them and say that they would support them to the hilt in opposition to this boycott? Furthermore, will the Foreign Secretary consult our Allies to see that we present a united front against this interference with the freedom of the seas?
    Mr Lloyd: As far as British ships are concerned, there is, in fact, not very much interference. If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will willingly look into them. Ships of ours which go to Israel are usually dry cargo ships, which do not go through the Canal, and are therefore not affected by the blockade, but if he has any particular cases which can be brought to my attention, or if that is the view he has attributed to the shipping interests concerned, I will look into the matter again.

  ANTARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations to propose the setting up of a United Nations Committee to study the problem of Antarctic sovereignty.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the United States Government have appointed a committee to study this problem? Would it not be at least equally advantageous if the United Nations were to undertake a similar study?
  Mr. Lloyd: In regard to action by any international body, I think our offer to have the dispute between Chile and Argentina referred to the International Court still stands and is the best way of bringing an international body into the matter.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not referring specifically to the dispute between Chile and Argentina. Are there not eight countries, all of whom have stated claims to territories in this region? I am only suggesting that if the United States Government have thought it desirable to undertake such a study the United Nations itself should do so.
  Mr. Lloyd: I would not be convinced that the one follows from the other.
  Mr. Younger: Does not the Foreign Secretary appreciate that this may not be a purely legal matter? I entirely agree with what he said about International Court questions, but there may be questions of policy which can be more suitably dealt with by some other body of the United Nations. Has not the time come, now that many nations are making claims, none of which can be substantiated so far as I can see, for this matter to be taken up as an international matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am willing to consider anything, and I will consider the international aspect of the matter, without offering any hope that I will change my present answer.

  FAR EAST (TRADE)
  Mr. Owenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British Far-East trading interests are concerned by the limits upon trade development in the area enforced by the present strategic list; and whether he will now review the list and assist the development of British trade.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The reply to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the Answers given on 14th May by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Members for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Northfield (Mr. Chapman) in which he indicated that more use would be made of the exceptions procedure.
  Mr. Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British trading interests in the Far East are seriously disturbed and frustrated by the rigid Government policy that limits the development of British interests in trading in this area? Surely the "new look" in the international field provides an opportunity for an urgent re-examination of the position in the interests of Britain's economy?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a considerable body of agreement on both sides of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation. On the other hand, we have to try to act in this matter with our Allies. I think

  235
  we are taking the wisest course in the present circumstances by the step forward which I have indicated of using the exceptions procedure to broaden trade.
  Mr. Younger: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about working with our Allies, but is it not the case that the only one of our Allies who wishes to maintain this in anything like its present form is the United States? The more countries come to think that it is absurd the more evasion there is and the more our traders—who, I think, either voluntarily or involuntarily, are observing the regulations—are likely to suffer in comparison with the traders of other countries.
  Mr. Lloyd: In the latter part of his supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman has stated the best reasons for the revision of the list.

  SUEZ CANAL (EGYPTIAN RESTRICTIONS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now direct the attention of the United Nations Organisation to the refusal of Egypt to permit vessels of any nationality free passage through the Suez Canal.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Security Council has debated this question and has called upon Egypt to terminate these restrictions. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we regard these restrictions as part of the dispute between Egypt and Israel; and we believe that the best way of removing them is to work for a general settlement of that dispute.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not an extraordinary situation when Egypt can defy the whole United Nations organisation and a decision of the Security Council? What is the use of the Security Council and the United Nations organisation if Egypt, and countries of this kind, can defy those bodies?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is very regrettable that the resolution of the United Nations has not been carried out, but then the question arises of the methods to be taken to enforce such a resolution. The fact is that Egypt maintains that there is still a state of war between Israel and Egypt
  236
  and that it entitles Egypt to impose these restrictions. We do not accept that view, but the way to remove the matter from controversy is to get a settlement of the main problem. Some progress is being made at the present time.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these restrictions were the subject of conversations between the United Kingdom Ambassador and Colonel Nasser?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.
  Mr. Paget: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that this is part of a dispute between Egypt and Israel? Are not these British ships on their lawful occasions which are being stopped? Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman asks, "What are we to do about it?", what do we keep a Navy for?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course, we had the same Navy in rather different circumstances when these restrictions were first imposed. I still believe that the matter will be satisfactorily solved only when we get a settlement of the main dispute. With regard to that, the mission of the Secretary-General was successful. There are current discussions going on in the United Nations about this matter. This is a more probable way of getting the restrictions removed than threats against Egypt in this House.

  ISRAELI-ARAB DISPUTE (REPORT)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the proposals contained in the report of the Secretary General of the United Nations for dealing with the Israeli-Arab problem.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Security Council met yesterday to begin consideration of Mr. HammarskjÖld's report. A draft resolution has been submitted by the United Kingdom representative endorsing Mr. HammarskjÖld's achievements and pointing out the way by which further progress can be made. The Council's discussion is continuing and I would prefer to say nothing more at this stage.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it correct that full compliance with the Israeli-Arab Armistice Agreement has not yet been achieved,

  237
  more especially as regards the establishment of the proposed observer posts and the granting of full freedom of movement to United Nations observers?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. and learned Member will look at the Resolution we have tabled, he will see that the matter is dealt with. The first part of his supplementary question is covered by the preamble to the Resolution.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question with a yes or no? Is it not a fact that full compliance has not yet been achieved? Is it not a fact that the Governments concerned have failed to carry out promises given to the Secretary General?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. and learned Member had listened to the Answer he would know that that is what the Resolution recites. A statement to that effect is in the preamble.
  Mr. Nicholson: Is not the policy of the Government based on the assumption—I believe soundly based—that a settlement can never be arrived at by hoping to bring the two sides together round the table but must be suggested, if not imposed, from outside?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the mission of the Secretary-General was successful and is to be commended. That is the way in which he went from one side to the other and succeeded in working out practical steps. I think that is a more likely method to succeed at the moment than that of bringing the parties round the table.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Whilst agreeing that the mission of the Secretary General was very valuable so far as it went, would the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the further steps he thinks should be taken to bring about a settlement, to which he referred in his original Answer?
  Mr. Lloyd: I really think it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would study the Resolution we have tabled, debate on which began only yesterday. I think it might be better to let that debate proceed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Could it be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Lloyd: Certainly.
  Following is final text of draft United Kingdom Resolution—

  (1) recalling its resolutions of 4 April 1956 and 11 August 1949;

  (2) having received the report of the Secretary General on his recent mission on behalf of the Security Council (DOC S/3596);

  (3) noting those passages of the report (Section III and Annexes I—IV) which refer to the assurances given to the Secretary General by all the parties to the Armistice Agreements unconditionally to observe the cease-fire;

  (4) noting that progress has been made towards the adoption of the specific measures set out in the third operative paragraph of the Security Council resolution of 4 April 1956;

  (5) noting, however, that full compliance with the General Armistice Agreements and with the Council's resolutions of 30 March 1955, 8 September 1955 and 19 January 1956 is not yet effected and that the measures called for in the third operative paragraph of its resolution of 4 April 1956 have been neither completely agreed upon nor put fully into effect;

  (6) conscious of the need to create conditions in which a peaceful settlement on a mutually acceptable basis of the dispute between the parties can be made;

  (7) believing that it will help to create such conditions if further progress is now made in consolidating the gains resulting from the Secretary General's mission and towards full implementation by the parties of the armistice agreements;

  (8) commends the Secretary General and the parties on the progress already achieved;

  (9) declares that the parties to the Armistice Agreements should speedily carry out the measures already agreed upon with the Secretary General and should co-operate with the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff to put into effect their further practical proposals, pursuant to the resolution of 4 April, with a view to full implementation of that resolution and full compliance with the Armistice Agreements;

  (10) declares that full freedom of movement of United Nations observers must be respected in all areas along the armistice demarcation lines in the demilitarised zones and in the defensive areas as defined in a general armistice agreement to enable them to fulfil their functions;

  (11) endorses the Secretary General's view that the re-establishment of full compliance with the Armistice Agreements represents a stage which has to be passed in order to make progress possible on the main issues between the parties;

  (12) requests the Chief of Staff to continue to carry out his observation of the cease-fire pursuant to the Security Council's resolution

  239
  of 11 August 1949 and to report to the Security Council whenever any action undertaken by one party to an armistice agreement constitutes a serious violation of that agreement or of the cease-fire which in his opinion requires immediate consideration by the Security Council;

  (13) calls upon the parties to the Armistice Agreements to take the steps necessary to carry out this resolution thereby increasing confidence and demonstrating their wish for peaceful conditions;

  (14) requests the Secretary General to continue his good offices with the parties and to report to the Security Council as appropriate.

  MONTREUX CONVENTION
  Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the Montreux Convention of 1936 expires; and what steps are being taken to renew it.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Montreux Convention will continue to run until two years after one of the High Contracting Parties has given notice of a desire to terminate it. No such notice has been given and therefore the second part of the Question does not arise.

  BAHAMAS

    Colour Bar (Select Committee)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he anticipates the Select Committee appointed by the Bahamas House of Assembly, which has published its interim report condemning the colour bar, will have completed its deliberations.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The Select Committee did not report further on this matter. On 18th May the Committee and the House of Assembly was dissolved, and a General Election is to be held shortly. I cannot forecast what action may be taken when the new Bahamas Legislature is sitting.
    Mr. Johnson: Whilst accepting that Answer with my usual patience, may I ask the Colonial Secretary, now that one Colony has appointed a Select Committee on the matter of the colour bar, whether he would also propose that a Select Committee should be appointed for other parts of the Commonwealth, such as Central Africa, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the consideration shown in the Bahamas will not be altogether lost in other parts of the world.

  KENYA

    Detainees
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the arrangements for the inspection of conditions in the detention camps of Kenya; if he will state the number of the camps; the number of detainees; the number of those so far released; and the number of Government inspectors for these camps to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 30th April, 1956, 41,772 persons were detained under Emergency Regulations in 51 detention and works camps. At that date, 27,046 detainees had been released since the beginning of the emergency. The arrangements for inspection of these camps, which are frequently visited by Ministers, heads of Departments and district commissioners, are based on inspection committees of which eight have been appointed by the Governor and another will be appointed shortly. These committees are required to visit the camp or camps in respect of which they have been constituted at least once a month and to hear any complaint, other than on the validity of a detention order, which a detainee may wish to make.
    Mr. Johnson: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask if he is aware of the serious allegation made by Miss Fletcher, who is a Quaker and a former civil servant of the Kenya Government and has worked in these camps for at least twelve months? Would he confirm or deny what has been made public in well-known newspapers, and also consider appointing Her Majesty's Inspectors to investigate these camps and perhaps give us a little more light on the alleged conditions?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I read the article the moment it appeared and immediately telegraphed its contents to Kenya and asked for comments on it. I would say to all those people who are ready to make sweeping allegations that it might be more helpful if they would contact me or my Department in regard to individual incidents so that we can find out the facts

    241
    in particular cases. None the less, I recognise that when charges are made it is up to me to answer them. I would also ask the House not to rush to hasty conclusions until it has heard detailed answers to detailed charges.
    Mr. Bevan: When did the right hon. Gentleman ask for this information from Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: During the Recess when I read the article in a newspaper not unknown to the right hon. Member.
    Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements that were published in that article were published some time ago?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very surprised if it is a fact that that particular newspaper or periodical only publishes information which has already appeared elsewhere. I took that article as being a serious statement and immediately asked for confirmation or comment on the facts in it.
    Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public opinion is shocked by these statements and will be further shocked by the flippancy of the answers he has been giving? We are really concerned about establishing the facts here, and we are in fact postponing judgment until the facts have been confirmed, but surely has not the Department of the right hon. Gentleman been rather remiss in not knowing that these statements were made a very considerable time ago? Is not his office responsible for this delay?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Member knows perfectly well that if at any time he or anybody with whom he is in contact has any particular statement or charges to make he has only to
    242
    approach me or my right hon. Friend and immediate investigation will be made. All I ask is that comment should be reserved until there has been an opportunity to reply.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these reports first appeared in the Quaker newspaper Peace News—I do not think he is referring to that? Did the Minister make inquiries as soon as it was published, as it was published a considerable time before?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The particular complaints to which I think the questions have been related have recently appeared in adequate detail in order to be able to identify them and to know to what they refer. As soon as I have the answer I will give it. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are more concerned about eliciting the facts than making political points, they had better await it.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the function of this House to elicit facts of this sort? Is he not aware that it is the duty of hon. Members of this House to educate public opinion on the facts when they are established, and is he not also aware that he is himself getting a very bad reputation in this matter?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Look at the clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Road Traffic Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ROAD TRAFFIC [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to road traffic and the provision of parking places and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such moneys (whether under the said Act or other enactments) by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to the construction, maintenance, alteration and removal (whether before or after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session) of works in the carriageway․

  (a) for separating different parts of the road;

  (b) for regulating the movement of traffic at cross-roads or other road junctions; and

  (c) for providing places of refuge for foot passengers;

  and to the lighting, covering, fencing, and planting of such works, and the payment out of such moneys or payment into the Exchequer of any sums so payable by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to street parking places and to traffic signs.
  Resolution agreed to.

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
  Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  3.32 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause 1 and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, lines 11 and 15; Clause 12, page 10, line 3, and page 11, line 4; Clause 22, page 18, lines 32 and 33; Clause 36, page 27, line 20; Clause 37, page 27, line 40; Clause 38, page 28, line 12; new Clauses (Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles), (Obligatory test certificates), (Duration of driving licences and fees therefor), (Provisions as to dual carriageways, roundabouts and street refuges) and (Traffic signs) and Schedule 3, page 31, line 7, and page 32, lines 1 and 31 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Watkinson.
  This Motion for the recommittal of the Bill is, as I think most right hon. and hon. Members will know, the only method open to me to authorise the pledges and undertakings given during our discussions in Committee. I do not, therefore, think it necessary for me to say any more in moving the Motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  244
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

    Clause 1.—(TESTS OF SATISFACTORY CONDITION OF VEHICLES.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1.
    The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we discussed the first proposed new Clause in the name of the Minister—Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles—and all the Amendments to it and then, if necessary, have Divisions later.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that that would be of very considerable convenience to the Committee, Sir Charles.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will now describe the general reasons which led to the acceptance of the Clause of right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) in Committee and describe the new Clause which now stands on the Order Paper in my name. The problem here is a very difficult one and, as the Committee will know, it has received a great deal of discussion in this House, in another place and in the country. When I took over the Bill, I thought it only right that I should consider carefully, and with an open mind, whether it was right that the compulsory testing of motor vehicles should be undertaken in addition to the existing powers held by the police, in conjunction with the examiners of my Ministry, to examine cars on the road by the spot check principle, as amplified in another Clause in the Bill.
    I asked myself one or two basic questions. I asked whether it was right to take these powers for the compulsory testing of vehicles and what justification existed for imposing that extra duty on motorists. The first point which anyone must consider is the tragic fact that this year about 14 or 15 people will be killed every day on our roads. I do not think that any hon. Member will fail to be conscious of the human tragedy and waste revealed by those figures.
    I tried to discover whether these powers would make a real contribution to safety on the roads. It is only fair to tell the

    245
    Committee that the statistics in the police records of accidents attributable to the unfitness of vehicles are not very impressive. They amount to about 2½ per cent. But that, of course, is not the full story, as I hope to show. May I say at once, and as I think the right hon. Member for Vauxhall will accept, that we have made much discussion during the Committee stage on these matters. I propose to be brief, but I am at the service of the Committee to answer any questions arising on this or any other matter.
    It is not only a matter of accident statistics. For example, a driver may turn to the right at short notice, without perhaps even giving the appropriate signal, and a car behind him may run into his vehicle. In the records that crash would be attributed to the negligence of the driver in front. But it may be that the driver behind could have avoided the crash had the brakes of his vehicle been efficient. So I think it fair to say that a great many accidents which are attributable to a defect in a vehicle do not get so recorded. I wish to refer to the experience at the Hendon car testing station, where we do not set an unnecessarily high standard. In March of this year 72 per cent. of the cars going through the station had one or more major defects. That figure is rather high.
    There are many people who take the view that defects in headlights are not important, but they cause a great number of accidents through dazzle. I wish to give the Committee some other figures. Of the pre-1945 cars—and these vehicles are not excessively old—which were tested—28 per cent. proved to have defective brakes, and in 47 per cent., that is nearly half the cars tested, the steering was not up to standard. If we consider those figures, and the casualty rates on the road; if we consider the tests at Hendon, which are not excessively tough, and do not conform to a very high standard, they clearly show that if the condition of cars could be improved, it would have a sensible effect on the accident rate.
    Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend say how many vehicles were tested at Hendon in March? Unless we have that figure, the percentages do not mean very much.
    Mr. Watkinson: I shall be glad to tell my hon. Friend. I will give him the figure in a moment, before I end my remarks on this Clause.
    I think it is shown, then, that we ought to take powers to test motor vehicles. The next question one ought to answer is: if we do it, how should we conduct these tests? This, of course, is only a permissive Clause. The detailed arrangements will have to be brought to the House in due course and will be debatable, but as I said in Committee and as I should like to make plain now, I think it right for me to take the broadest means I can. This will not be an easy thing to do. It will be a burden on the skilled labour and on the motor car industry. It will also take time. So I think it right that I should take powers that will enable me to use either Government testing stations, those of local authorities, or private garages.
    A point has been made that the difficulty with a private garage—and to some extent I think it is a difficulty in every test—is the risk of an abuse; the risk of a motorist paying money to get a false certificate as to the condition of his car. We have looked at that very carefully and I believe that it is possible to avoid that kind of abuse. The first way to do it is to restrict, as we would propose, the test to a very simple list—brakes, steering and lights. Subject to one overriding factor, only those three things would be tested.
    The over-riding thing is, of course, that if in testing a car the experts found that it was in such a dangerous condition as to be unsafe for the owner to take on the road, they would tell him so. I have in mind such things as a tyre so badly slit that it might burst at any moment, a cracked chassis, or some other serious defect. The owner would then be told. But the purpose of the test would be to see that the brakes, steering and lights were of a sufficient standard to make that car reasonably roadworthy and not a danger to other users of the road.
    If the tests are cheap and simple, as they will be, then the equipment necessary to be installed will equally be simple and reasonably inexpensive. What I think would be established would be something like the ordinary greasing bay, with which most of us are familiar in a garage; a separate corner of the

    247
    garage where the equipment is kept tidily and which is clearly marked as a testing bay and where the motorist would be in no doubt as to the equipment used and the people using it. It would not, I think, put the users to great expense, nor would it put the garages that had to install the equipment to great expense.
    The only other point that I would make there is the very important one relating to the method of policing the scheme. Wherever the testing is carried out that policing will be done by the vehicle examiners and the certifying officers of my Department, who are experienced men. As the Committee knows, they are all members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, and the senior vehicle examiners have actually been recruited from the motor car industry. They are men who know their job from beginning to end.
    We should see that there was a sufficient force of certifying officers and vehicle examiners to make sure that the tests were properly and fairly carried out. As an example of the interest which the tests have already aroused—and in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson)—just over 6,500 vehicles have already gone through the Hendon station. Of course, those tests have all been voluntary tests. It is also fair to say that the owners of the cars tested are mostly motorists who are interested in their cars and not those who are sure that their vehicles should not be in the road in any case. Nevertheless, I think that the figures are not unfair.
    The answer to the second is that the tests should be widely spread. I do not believe that there is a serious risk of abuse, but if there were I am sure that my controlling officers would be quite capable of dealing with it.
    We have had a lot of letters from people asking, "Why pick cars that are ten years old?" The difficulty is that we have to start at one end of the scale or the other, and I think that the following figures perhaps do show that it is right to start with the older car. Of the older cars—the pre-1945 cars—going through Hendon, over a quarter have been found to have defective brakes and nearly half had defective steering. If we look at the figures for the modern cars—that is to
    248
    say, the 1954–55–56 cars—the figures go down to 4 per cent. for defective brakes and 9 per cent. for steering. Those are still quite large figures, but, of course, very much lower than those for the older cars.
    One thing I do want to make clear. This is not an attempt to drive the older car off the road or to interfere with the well-kept veteran car, which is a remarkable vehicle, a great credit to the motor car industry of the past, and generally a good deal better kept than many more modern cars. The owners of veteran cars need not be alarmed, nor need the owner of the older cars. That is why we are to have these tests, which will be not expensive and may well save the life of the motorist himself as well as the lives of other users of the roads.
    I would sum up by saying that I believe that vehicle testing once a year can make an essential contribution to road safety. I think that it helps the motorist, and encourages pride of ownership in the car—which is very important. It is also very important in regard to safe driving. If the owner takes a pride in his car he is much more likely to drive carefully than if he lacks that pride. Let me repeat that this testing is not directed against old cars of any kind. It will take a long time to prepare the scheme and I certainly pledge myself not to implement it until we can do it properly. We will, I am sure, avoid abuse, but we shall have to spread the tests. If the House gives a passage to the Bill and it becomes law, I shall have to come here again with detailed proposals.
    3.45 p.m.
    For those reasons, having tried to think it out as carefully—and as objectively, I hope—as possible, because as I see it there is no decision except as it concerns the safety of people on the roads, I think it right to bring forward this new Clause —although I know that I am not moving it but moving to delete the right hon. Gentleman's Clause—and I hope the Committee will accept what I have said as a statement of my general aims.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Are there any figures to show how the accident proclivity of the new cars compares with that of the old? I have been told that in that respect the new cars

    249
    show a good deal higher percentage than the old; although that may be because the old cars, as a result of their possible bad condition, are driven more slowly.
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that there is an answer to that which I already know. There are certainly a number of very bad accidents occurring now as a result of very fast cars being driven at very high speed. When those cars crash it is obviously a very serious and messy business. But I do not think that there is any statistical evidence that new cars are causing more accidents than old and I do not think that there is any way of ascertaining whether that statement be true or not.
    I agree that the owner of the old car which is reasonably well-maintained is inclined to drive more carefully and to that extent may be safer, but I do not honestly think that there is much in it one way or the other. What I want to see, if possible, is a greater pride in the car and a greater attempt to keep it in reasonable order. If that can be achieved, I believe it would have a sensible effect on road safety.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister has, as usual, been admirably clear and—although I am not criticising him for it—exceedingly brief. It will be appreciated by yourself, Sir Charles, and by the Committee that this is probably the most important Clause in the Bill. As this is the first time we have had an opportunity of considering the Minister's version, and as there are a number of Amendments which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself desire to move, I think that it will be understandable if we spend a little time considering this very important proposal, although I am sure that nobody in the Committee wants to prolong the discussions on this or on any of the Amendments which will come before us.
    My first comment about the Minister's new Clause, which we are considering as well as the deletion of the old one, is that it is a very happy outcome of a long period of decision and counter-decision by the Government on this question of compulsory testing. Although the final outcome is one which we welcome, I think it is essential for the sake of the record to say a word about the extraordinary history of this business.
    250
    The first thing that happened was that the Bill which the Government introduced in another place in the previous Session had a Clause in it which provided the Minister with powers to effect compulsory testing of cars in private garages. The principle was accepted by their Lordships. The Government spokesman in another place said that this principle was essential to cope with road safety. It was accepted, but an Amendment was made to the effect that the tests should be carried out not in private garages but in State testing stations, such as we now have at Hendon.
    When the Bill appeared in the Commons in the new Session all reference to compulsory testing was omitted altogether. Therefore, we had the strange situation in which the Government came to the House and said that what they considered essential and had been agreed to in principle in another place they now proposed to abandon altogether. There was no mention of the matter in the Bill that came before the House.
    In the Standing Committee I, on behalf of my colleagues, who believed that compulsory testing would have a marked effect on reducing road accidents, moved a Clause to provide for this. We were turned down by the Minister, who said that it was impracticable, too difficult, that the number of technicians required would be considerable, and all the rest of it. But, later—and it is true that by that time there was a change of Minister, but it was the same Government—we were told that the principle was to be accepted. The last thought of the Government, after turning somersaults three times on this question, is the one which we now have before us, and that is the acceptance of the principle of compulsory testing.
    Although we agree with the new Clause in principle, there are several defects in the Clause which we propose to bring to the attention of the Committee and, if possible, obtain the agreement of the Committee with our views. Before I refer to the Amendments, I want to say a few words about the general principle involved. I do not want to go over the whole question of compulsory testing yet once more, but I would say that it has been proved, as far as proof in this sort of matter is possible, that the regular compulsory testing of cars brings down the number of road accidents significantly and, indeed, in quite a striking way.

    251
    Incidentally, the case for compulsory testing of vehicles was never made by the Government on any occasion, not even when the Bill was first discussed in another place. No figures were quoted in favour of the case. But, in essence, the simple figures which we have show this. In the United States, where a large number of States have compulsory testing either yearly or half-yearly, the number of deaths on the road are 20 per cent. less than in those States where there is no compulsory testing of cars. I know it is possible to read those figures in two ways; it is possible to read them so that the result is only 10 per cent. But it is something between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.
    We know that our own Road Research Laboratory which went into this matter very carefully made an estimate, which has been accepted by the Government, that in the accidents that take place in this country a contributory factor in 20 per cent. of the cases was a vehicle defect. All these figures, together with those which we now have as a result of testing of vehicles at Hendon, make it clear that the defects in cars on the road contribute substantially to the number of accidents that take place.
    I want to give a few more figures to show what benefit might be derived and what reductions might be made in our road accidents if we carried out on a full scale the compulsory testing of vehicles. If one takes the figure of a I0 per cent. reduction in accidents the lowest figure which one can get from the experience we have—that would mean that in a year 550 people fewer would be killed and 6,000 people fewer would be seriously injured; and of the 550 fewer people killed, 60 would be children.
    There is no question but that this proposal, when carried out to the full as it is in other countries—this is only the first stage—will bring down the number of deaths on our roads substantially. It is not only well worth while; it is urgent to move as quickly as possible along these lines.
    If one looks at this problem from the material rather than the human point of view, it has been reckoned by the authorities from figures prepared by the Government Actuary that road accidents cost the country today at least £150 million a year.
    252
    A 10 per cent. reduction in accidents would produce a saving of £15 million—immensely more than the cost of carrying out any scheme of compulsory testing.
    The value of compulsory testing is twofold. Not only does it reveal defects in cars, but it makes people more defect-conscious. Very few people drive cars knowing them to be defective. Perhaps a few do but they are not social-minded. They may know that their brakes are not quite right, or that the lights are not what they ought to be, yet they take their cars on the road because they cannot be bothered to put them right. But most people do not realise in what a bad condition their cars are. I am certain that most of those who went to the Hendon testing station were amazed to find that in matters such as steering, lighting, and so on, there were serious defects in their cars.
    I was given a striking example of this when I went to have my car tested. I had a conversation with the man in charge, and he told me that recently a man had driven his car there with his wife and two children. They had driven all the way from a town in the North. This was a man who was meticulous about the condition of his car. Before he had driven to Hendon he had had his car thoroughly serviced and tested by his home garage. Because he had an interest in this matter he went to Hendon and said, "I would like you to have a look at the car". They had a look at it.
    The brakes were so defective that when the man was testing them the whole of the apparatus collapsed. It was absolutely certain that if that man had gone out and driven his car, at a certain time—it might have been within five minutes or it might have been within some weeks or months of leaving Hendon—if he had applied his footbrake it would have had no effect. Possibly he and his whole family would have been involved in a fatal accident on their way home. He did not know there was anything wrong with the brakes of his car. Most people do not. Therefore, these tests bring to light information which the motorists do not have, and make them, broadly speaking, more conscious of the desirability of keeping their cars up to standard.
    I want to say a word or two on what we consider a very important aspect of

    253
    this new Clause, and that is who should do the testing. That was a matter of great controversy in the other place and in Committee. I was disappointed not to head the Minister's views on this matter. He takes power in his new Clause to have testing done at Government testing stations, such as the one at Hendon, by local authorities or in private garages. I hoped he would tell us that it is his intention to have as much testing as possible done by the Government garages or perhaps by the local authorities, and as little as possible by private garages. He did not tell us anything of the sort, and he has given us no idea of what his general policy on this matter would be. I really hope he will tell us, before we come to the end of our debate.
    4.0 p.m.
    We take grave objection to having cars tested by private garages, except in very special and unusual circumstances. It is all very well for the Minister to say that fears of abuse are ill-founded. They are nothing of the sort; he cannot get rid of the danger of abuse if private garages are to do this testing. He has said that one thing he will do to avoid the danger of abuse is to have testing of three things only, namely, brakes, steering and lights.
    He is making a grave mistake there, to start with. At Hendon, many other things of great importance were tested, such as the direction indicators to see whether they are working properly, the windscreen wipers to test their efficiency, the effectiveness of the rear view mirror, and the tyres. All those things are important, and, if there is a defect among them, there can easily be an accident. It is wrong to say that in these new Government testing stations or private garages—whatever they may be—there should be no effective testing of these devices, and I very much regret that the Minister takes that view.
    It is a lamentable fact, but it is, I suppose, indisputable, that garages as a whole do not in this country enjoy a reputation for shining integrity. To accord to private garages power to insist on what may be costly repairs being carried out at the expense of the private motorist is surely wrong; it will be not only disliked, but, I should have thought, resented by the great body of private motorists.
    254
    Of the two types of possible abuse, one—and perhaps this is the lesser one is that a garage which wanted to keep or attract custom could do so by getting a reputation for being easy with its tests and by not being so meticulous as others in carrying them out, in the hope that in return it would become popular in the neighbourhood and that people would give them more business. Much more serious, however, is the possibility that a garage might find faults and be overmeticulous in making tests, insisting on repairs being carried out, in the hope and belief that those repairs would be carried out by that garage.
    I should have thought that this is something which is bound to happen in some cases, perhaps in only a few; but even if it did not actually happen at all, the motorist or vehicle owner would be bound to think that it was happening when he went to a garage with his vehicle, believing it to be all right, and got a note to say that he must have substantial repairs carried out to his steering, that his lighting is out of order, and that this, that, and the other must be attended to. He may not believe it; he may believe that he has been told to do these things because it will bring business to the garage which carried out the test. That situation is surely unsatisfactory and ought not to be enforced by legislation.
    In this matter, as in others, I would suggest that American experience is of value. Some States in the United States carry out tests by State stations; others do it by private enterprise stations, by garages. Incidentally, this fact should be borne in mind, that opinion polls taken in the United States with regard to the popularity or unpopularity of compulsory testing have shown an overwhelming result, over 90 per cent., in favour of compulsory testing of cars, in spite of the obvious great inconvenience to the motorist. It is, therefore, all the more surprising that some of the motoring organisations are opposing this proposal. It is very popular in the States.
    As a result of personal inquiry I have made of friends who live in the United States, I have been told that where their cars are tested in private garages there is a general belief, justified or not, that a certain amount of hanky-panky goes on. That feeling does not exist at all,

    255
    of course, in those States where it is the State itself which does the testing. Where private garages do it, there is bound to be a certain amount of suspicion.
    In this matter, we do not take an absolutist attitude; we do not say that private garages should be eliminated altogether. Throughout the discussion on this question, we have tried to be, and have been, I think, wholly reasonable. We have said there may be a case for having private garages authorised and inspected by the Ministry so that they may do the testing in exceptional circumstances, for instance, in remote areas where it is difficult for the State or local authority to set up a testing station, or in a place where, perhaps, it is desired to start the testing, but there has not yet been time or it has been difficult for the Government to set up its own testing station.
    In such circumstances, let the private garage do it temporarily; we would agree that there is a case for it. We have put our Amendments upon the Notice Paper to ensure that testing by public authority stations shall be the rule, and that testing by private garages should be exceptional and temporary.
    I hope that the Committee will agree on this principle. If there were any doubt about it, the Committee will surely be encouraged by the fact that it is the principle which the House of Lords has laid down as being the correct one. If we agree to it here, there will not be any difficulty in another place.
    I now have one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister. First, in paragraph (4) of his new Clause there is a right of appeal to the Minister where someone feels aggrieved. I am not quite clear whether, if someone has been told by the inspector that his car is not fit for the road, and he desires to appeal, he is to be allowed to drive that car on the road pending that appeal. Obviously, he ought not to be allowed to do so, but, from my reading of the Clause as it stands, I am not quite clear what the situation is. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
    Has the Minister in mind that the detailed regulations he will bring before the House will enable a motorist to undertake a test voluntarily, or will the testing
    256
    be of only those care which are ten years or more old?
    Mr. Watkinson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Strauss: I see the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head in disagreement with the later part of my question. I am, therefore, satisfied that those who desire to have their own cars tested, even if those cars are younger than ten years old, will be able to do so. I am glad to know that.
    Lastly—and this is really a very important question—how quickly does the Minister propose to proceed? I, and, I think, my colleagues, have been rather discouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech. He said it would be a considerable time before he would be able to come to the House with the regulations, and from that I got the impression that there is not to be much sense of urgency about this matter. There is to be a delay before the scheme is drawn up, and a longer delay before the thing is in operation. We must not, apparently, expect any great speed.
    No one wants to be unreasonable. Obviously, it would be quite impossible to have this scheme covering the country within the year. We know that. But we do believe that it is exceedingly urgent that this scheme should be put into effect as quickly as possible, and that the ten-year limit should be only a start. As soon as the scheme gets going properly, we should do what has been done in the United States—gradually bring the ten-year period down to one or two years, so that all cars which have been on the road even for only a short time will be tested.
    How quickly does the Minister propose to put this scheme into operation? Those of us who have been concerned about these matters of road safety for a long time know that three things, in effect, can bring about a significant reduction in road accidents—education and propaganda, having newer and safer roads, and vehicle inspection. Education and propaganda ought to go on at a much more effective rate than at the moment. Newer and safer roads take a long time and are very expensive. The third method, although not easy, is a comparatively quick and effective method of having a marked effect on the number of road accidents which take place in this country.

    257
    There is, therefore, every conceivable ground for hastening the operation of the scheme, and I therefore hope that the Minister will give us more encouraging news when he speaks later. I beg him not to linger, but to put the matter very high in the list of priorities. According to the figures and calculations which I have given already, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that when this scheme is in full operation I00 cases of serious injury which now take place on our roads every week will not take place. There will be 100 fewer seriously injured, 10 fewer deaths on the road and one child fewer killed every week.
    We can say that, based on experience, with a confident degree of certainty, and I therefore beg the Government—as I am sure do all hon. Members—to go forward with this matter with all possible speed and energy and thereby do something which, as we know by experience, will have a considerable effect on reducing the number of deaths and accidents on our roads.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I gather that we are having a general discussion upon the Minister's new Clause, and perhaps it would save the time of the Committee if I argued the points which appear in the Amendments to the new Clause in my name and the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham, (Mrs. Corbet). The purpose of the Amendments, if accepted by the Committee, is to except local authorities from the operation of the Clause and from carrying out testing arrangements.
    I want to make it clear that I in no way dissent from the point of view which has been so strongly put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that testing ought to be done either by the Government or by local authorities. The point really raised by the Amendments is that if local authorities are to undertake this heavy and new obligation, they must be properly remunerated for it. It is clear that the Clause as drafted makes no provision for reimbursement. Obviously in the case of a county council with a large area, or any large authority, several testing stations will have to be provided. The London County Council will have to provide a number. The cost of either
    258
    new buildings or the adaptation of old buildings in order that this work can be competently and efficiently done is bound to involve an expenditure of money.
    In addition, there is the training and enrolling of inspectors and mechanics who are to do the work, and who must be well qualified and well trained if they are not only to do the job properly but to carry the confidence which work of this kind requires. Obviously those who have their cars inspected will need to feel complete confidence both in the arrangements for the reception of vehicles and in those who are to undertake the work.
    In its present form the new Clause makes no provision whatever for the reimbursement of designated authorities either for their capital expenditure on the building and maintenance of the testing stations or for their expenditure on those who are to be employed in them. In the case of the London County Council, which is my special concern—although I understand that the point is the concern of all the local authority associations—the scheme is bound to involve a considerable capital and maintenance expenditure.
    The purpose of the Amendments is to find out whether the Minister proposes in some way to ensure that local authorities are not out of pocket as a result of the new duty which is to be placed on them. I ought to make it clear to the Minister, although he may have already discovered this from his discussions with local authority associations, that this is not a duty which local authorities particularly want. They will have considerable difficulty in recruiting the mechanics required and making the necessary arrangements. If they undertake the task in the public interest and in the interest of road safety and the preservation of life, at least we must see that they are not financially injured as a result of the new obligations placed upon them.
    Since I put my Amendments down, I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others have put down Amendments covering the point, and it may well be that the Minister can give us a fairly quick answer which would save the time of the Committee later. That is why I intervened at this stage.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Royle: My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has so very lucidly and powerfully made the case covering the main points contained in the views from this side of the Committee that, since we are all anxious to give a speedy passage to the Bill as far as possible, I will concentrate for a moment on the rather simple Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and myself, in line I3, at the end to insert "non-county borough".
    The intention of the Amendment will be obvious to the Minister. I hope that he will give it sympathetic consideration. It shows my unselfishness, when the Committee remembers that I represent a large county borough, that I am taking the point of view, in this respect, of the noncounty boroughs. Whatever happens to the important Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, the position will certainly be that local authorities will have some part in the examination as envisaged in the new Clause. I will put the point as briefly and as forcefully as I can that some non-county boroughs are larger than many county boroughs. When we remember the discussions that we have had in the House whether Luton should be a county borough, we see an illustration of the present situation. It would be unfair to make non-county boroughs dependent upon the county for this examination. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Watkinson: I said in my remarks that I wanted to spread the load as widely as possible. I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), but I will give him an undertaking to introduce in another place an Amendment which will cover the point he raises and which will make it possible for non-county boroughs, and indeed the whole range of local authorities, to participate in this scheme if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Royle: I am obliged.
    Mr. Peter Kirk: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but there are two points which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend on this new Clause. He is aware that I was not a member of the
    260
    Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) then moved a new Clause on my behalf covering the compulsory testing of certain classes of vehicles.
    I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend that he should be very flexible in respect of the vehicles called for testing. He should not start only with those more than ten years old. The particular class which I have in mind includes the privatehire vehicle used by a local authority for taking children to school. There was an accident in my own constituency the details of which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is very well aware through the exhaustive correspondence which ensued. It involved a vehicle of this kind which was in a disgraceful condition, and it was an accident in which a young girl was very nearly killed.
    I think that that type of vehicle, particularly private vehicles which are used by public bodies, should also be tested, whether they are ten years old or not. In the particular case which I have quoted, the vehicle was more than ten years old and would have come within the scope of the Bill, but there are cases where the vehicles are not ten years old. They are being used to take children to school; the children have to travel in them whether they like it or not, and cannot refuse to go. Therefore, I think that such vehicles should be tested under the provisions of the new Clause.
    The other point is that it is not much use having testing stations unless we know what kind of standards are laid down. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) said that not only a question of testing brakes, lights and steering was involved; and that is quite true. In the accident to which I have already referred, the real injuries were caused by flying glass. I understand that under the present Regulations safety glass is prescribed only for the windscreen, although I believe that most motor car manufacturers now fit it in all round their vehicles. On the occasion in the Standing Committee which I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary if he would investigate the position and produce new regulations to make safety glass compulsory all round the car, and not

    261
    only for the windscreen. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether any progress has been made in that direction since the Committee stage of the Bill was completed. I personally welcome the new Clause, and hope that it will be put into effect as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ede: I should like to ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind the point raised in the Amendment to the new Clause in my name, in line 55, at the end to insert;
    (7) The Minister shall repay to designated local authorities their expenses properly incurred in the exercise of their function under this section?
    I would also support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). The local authorities, while they are quite willing to undertake this work—at least, the local authorities for whom one is competent to speak—realise that it will involve them in a very great deal of expense, and they will require some assurance in the Bill itself that they will be reimbursed for any expenditure which they have to incur in carrying out these duties.
    I was a little alarmed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), that he was going to include the whole range of the local authorities in the Bill. In the light of what my hon. Friend himself said, I must point out that, while it is true that there are some non-county boroughs larger than some county boroughs, there are also some others that are very small indeed. Does my hon. Friend contemplate giving this power to the Borough of Montgomery, where a penny rate produces £12? ·I would suggest that, in these claims for autonomy, there should be some regard to the nature of the duties which people express themselves as willing to undertake.
    Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has mentioned that I was trying to include every local authority. There is no mention of urban district councils in the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend and myself. It is limited to non-county boroughs; it is only meant to give them the right, and not to confer a power.
    Mr. Ede: No; my hon. Friend did not listen quite carefully enough. It was the Minister who said, in one sweeping phrase, that he was going to give it to the whole range of local authorities that would include everybody. But that does not alter the fact that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West would include the non-county Borough of Montgomery. Sometimes the trouble with people who claim to undertake certain duties is that they do not always sufficiently bear in mind their own capacity to discharge the duties when they have undertaken them. I hope that, whatever is done in another place, a sense of proportion will be observed in this matter.
    Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly quoted me, but I had taken note, in what I said, of the fact that I understand that the Amendment is restricted, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) quite rightly said, to the noncounty boroughs. I certainly did not intend to take up the parish councils, nor, I think, probably, the urban district councils. All I say is that we want to look at it and make it as wide as is reasonably possible.
    Mr. Ede: I am grateful for that interruption.
    Let me say that there are some urban district councils that are tremendously greater than the majority of the noncounty borough councils. While I do not want to start a battle on this particular issue, I hope that the wide general phrases that are being used will be interpreted very carefully when it comes to putting something into legislation. I am quite certain that, no matter what the size of the authority or its financial resources, it will expect to be reimbursed for the cost of the work which it does for the Ministry and of any duties which are imposed upon it by this new Clause.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I come new to the matter of the words on the Notice Paper, not having been a member of the Standing Committee, and I therefore want to ask one or two questions about them.
    First, I am not at all happy with the provision about ten-year-old cars. I have an 18-year-old car, which is far safer than

    263
    my second car, which is only one year old. I would much rather drive the 18year-old car on the icy roads in Scotland in winter than the modern car, because I feel much safer in it. I think that there is a great deal to be said for the old cars, and I therefore hope that any testing that goes on will be applied reasonably to old cars, because I believe that they are much safer than the modern, highly-geared cars, which skid about on the snow and ice in Scotland.
    My second question is whether tractors are involved. I think I am right in saying that, under the licence which is issued for tractors, the driver is limited in the distance which he is permitted to travel to 15 miles. If he wishes to go more than 15 miles, he has to have the ordinary licence as well. The testing stations in my sparsely populated constituency may be 20 miles away. How, then, is the tractor to get there if it is involved in this testing business?
    The next question that occurs to me is why one is to be tested only by the county council or the local authority of the area in which the vehicle has been registered. There are three points that might be chosen for the registration of a vehicle in my area. There is the county town of Forfar, in Angus, the county town of Perth, in Perthshire, and the big town of Dundee, which is in between the two counties. Why should not one have the choice of being tested at any one of these three places? Why should one be compelled to go only to the office of the authority in whose area the vehicle was registered?
    My last question is at what date does the test cease to be effective? Under the wording of the new Clause, a licence will not be granted except after production of a test certificate issued within 12 months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed, before the date of the licence. When one applies for a new licence for a car on 1st January, one has to take the insurance certificate, and in the case of a ten-year-old car, or, in my own case, an 18-year-old car, one will have to take an extra certificate as well. That makes three pieces of paper which one has to take, but the point is how long in advance of 1st January will one be able to take a test? If it is 2nd January of the previous year, in that case the old car may have lost
    264
    the value of its certificate by then. I think there will have to be give and take, for if the testing conditions are too much prescribed they will be impossible to fulfil, and one may find oneself after fourteen days faced with the possibility of having to pay a £20 fine.
    4.30 p.m.
    I would impress upon my right hon. Friend once again that these old cars are intrinsically, because they are not so highly geared, safer than modern cars. The figure which my right hon. Friend has just given of 9 per cent. of new cars being defective in steering is a very alarming figure. I hope that, in addition to all he is doing, he will impress on car manufacturers that they should not turn out new cars in the state in which they are turning them out today, a state in which, in a year, 4 per cent. have defective brakes and 9 per cent. defective steering. It is a disgrace to modern motor engineering.
    Mr. G. H. Oliver: Following what the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has said, I myself think that the Minister's figures were rather alarming. If I understood them correctly, they showed that of the pre-1944 cars that were tested 28 per cent. had defective brakes and 47 per cent. defective steering. That is a very high proportion of the pre-1944 cars, and I should think that that is evidence that cars of a vintage ten years old should undergo the testing experiment.
    Captain Duncan: I was not objecting. I was pointing out that new cars, while not as dangerous, I admit, are yet very dangerous.
    Mr. Oliver: I think there will be a trend towards reducing the ten years to a shorter period eventually. A ten-year period is suggested as a start.
    I want to ask the Minister about the examiners and their selection. Will those who are not his officers have, for the job of examination, any qualifications comparable with those of his own officers? Or will they be merely garage hands employed by garages, and without having had inquiry made into their qualifications? They may not have any, apart from the experience which garage hands invariably acquire simply by working for a long time at garages. Many of the people employed in garages have had no

    265
    mechanical training, and some have no mechanical knowledge. Many of them do nothing more, or very little more, than fill the petrol tanks of vehicles. If the Minister is to put persons other than his own officers to this class of work it is important that he should see they have some qualifications for it, comparable with the qualifications of his own officers, who, we know, have very high standards of attainment and proficiency.
    Mr. George Darling: I want to ask the Minister about the fees which will be paid for the testing of cars. I assume, from my reading of his new Clause, that drivers taking their cars to a testing station, whether it be a public station or a private garage which has been, so to speak, licensed for the purpose of testing, will pay fees. Is the Minister's view that the income from the fees will, over a period of years, cover the capital cost of erecting the testing station and also pay the cost of its maintenance, and so on? I think it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up the question of fees arising out of our experience of Hendon?
    I would support my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) in his objection to the use of private garages as testing stations. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilkston (Mr. Oliver) has just asked questions about testers in the private garages, how they will be selected, and what standard will be laid down to which they must conform. There is another factor. It will not be possible to select only a man to be a tester. It will be necessary to select the garage, too. The state and size of the garage will have to be such that testing can be done there.
    I can foresee conflict arising over this selection, particularly in country districts. In a country district there may be a private garage run by a very good mechanic, a first-rate mechanic. Many of us know, from our driving experience, that one can come across private garages where there are very good mechanics. However, a very good mechanic at a private garage may not be selected to be an examiner because his garage may not be of a size suitable for the testing. Down the road there may be a tied garage which the petrol companies helped to provide with a pretty expensive lay-out, and there may be room at that garage for a test bay.
    266
    There may not be so good a mechanic there, however.
    The good mechanic at the small garage perhaps believes in British freedom, and does not want to become tied to great petrol companies or their garages, and wants to run his own garage, but because he has not the facilities he may lose the testing job and thereby lose the trade in repairs. As my right hon. Friend said, there may be a tie-up between the testing and the subsequent repairing, and the more expensively equipped garage, where the testing can be done, will attract the repair work. I think that that is a consideration which ought to be borne carefully in mind. I would oppose, for that reason and others, the proposal that private garages should be selected as the testing stations.
    Mr. E. Gresham Cooke: We have to be practical over this question of compulsory testing. According to what my right hon. Friend said in the Standing Committee upstairs, we shall want about 150 testing stations and 2,000 mechanics. In these times of shortages of men and materials it will take long to find the stations and the men and to build up this structure and to get it in good working order.
    I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, in the meantime, will make some determined use of spot checking on the roads? I have always believed that we could achieve some good results by spot checking. It could be done. A spot check would take only five or ten minutes. It could be a quick and effective means of telling a driver that his car is or is not up to standard. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes to use that spot checking in the meantime as a practical means of bringing about a better standard?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) for putting down the new Clause in Committee and for allowing me, as the Minister who came newly to be in charge of the Bill, time at that stage to think again. I am very grateful to him for that. I do not mind how many vicissitudes we go through on this Measure, which is not a subject of party political controversy, and is an attempt to make a contribution to the solution of the problem of road safety. I do not mind how many vicissitudes I

    267
    personally go through as long as at the end I am satisfied I have obtained the best possible answer.
    I should like now to answer one or two of the points which, so very fairly and well, the right hon. Gentleman has made. I was very interested in the examples he gave of the astonishing things that come to light. People who at present oppose this system of testing would not for a moment do so if they spent a day at Hendon and there saw motor owner after motor owner coming in with their cars, thinking there is nothing wrong with them, and learning that they are defective—have defective brakes, for instance—and constitute dangers even to the drivers themselves should they be in a crisis on the road.
    I have had prepared a list of a few things which were found wrong with vehicles tested during April this year, when 979 vehicles out of 2,248 passing through the testing station were regarded as having under-vehicle items requiring attention. It is a most astonishing list. I will not go into details but it includes cracked chassis, broken springs, and dangerous steering due to a variety of causes. In some cases the steering box itself was ready to drop off. Wheel bearings were worn and tyres were dangerous.
    There was almost the whole range of things that could possibly happen to a car. I am advised that in most cases the owners had not the slightest idea that these things were wrong until the cars were examined. This is, therefore, a service of value to the motorist. It is not an imposition upon him. It may well tell him something about his motor car which it is very much in his own interest that he should know.
    I agree that the question of who is to do the testing is a difficult point. It caused a great deal of debate in the other place. Speeches by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and other hon. Members have shown a desire for a sense of urgency and I want to respond to the request of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that I should show it. I accept that as a very proper criticism, but if we are to show a sense of urgency we must use every possible means to get this service into operation. That is the difficulty that faces me, and I have deliberately drawn the Clause
    268
    as widely as I can so that I shall not be debarred from using any method available. That is perhaps why I was a little too generous, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, in responding to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who wanted me to widen the means. I do not want to exclude any possible means of getting this most necessary job done.
    If we are to get that reasonable sense of urgency I cannot see how we can hope to do this job without using ordinary public garages a great deal. I think that in many cases the general public will expect that we should use State stations where available, but I must be fair and say that we shall not have the money to build a great chain of State testing stations. A good many local authorities have service garages where they service their own vehicles. That is a useful method that might well be adopted. I undertake to have the most careful discussions with local authorities to see what use we can make of the facilities they offer, in the same way as we shall have careful discussions with the motor trade to see what facilities the private garage can offer.
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked what steps we propose to take against abuse. There is the possibility of abuse wherever we do the testing. There will always be the odd owner of a car who knows that it should not be on the road and takes it to a station and hopes to get by through some means or other. Therefore, there will have to be a standard of inspection by officers of my Ministry.
    The case made by the Opposition is that in the private garage the likelihood of some sort of wrong inspection or of a certificate being given wrongly is greater and more difficult to police. I do not necessarily take that view. I think that it will be possible, and it will be necessary, to examine most carefully the private garages that will take part in the scheme. Equally, and this is why I cannot be specific about progress, I intend to have full consultations with the motor garage trade itself through the responsible trade organisation.
    4.45 p.m.
    I will take careful note of what has been said on both sides of the Committee about the best methods of doing the

    269
    job, because I have yet to draw the regulations—as I have yet to conduct conversations and examine the position. Therefore, there is plenty of room for manoeuvre. I am advised, however, that there is no possibility of doing all this without relying to a great extent on private garages if we are to have the scheme in a foreseeable time. It would not be right to carry it out in one area and not in another. We cannot have it in London, for example, and not in the Midlands. It must be a nation-wide scheme and therefore it must use every kind of testing authority that we can find.
    The right hon. Member for Vauxhall also said that he thought that my list of things that would be tested was rather restricted. I said that we would concentrate on brakes, steering and lights, subject to the general point that if a car was for any reason found to be dangerous on the road it would have to be dealt with. One of the reasons why I want to restrict the scheme to simple things is that they are not costly. To put right the things that I have mentioned is not an expensive or difficult business. It is not something that will throw a big new load on the garage business. If, for example, a car comes to Hendon and is found to be in need of a complete overhaul and reconditioning of the engine, that is an expensive matter. Whilst that might well be pointed out to the owner, it is not largely a question of road safety that it should be immediately put right. It is not something to which an owner should fear he would be subjected in this testing system. On the other hand, if the steering is affected or the brakes are well below standard, those are things which he ought to have attended to immediately, but they are neither expensive to do nor do they take a great deal of skilled labour to put right.
    I say this in the light of not yet having finally made up my mind. The regulations are not prepared yet, and when they are they will have to come before the House of Commons, but the fact remains that the simpler we make the task, the less burden we put on the mechanics and the garage industry, the quicker and better we shall have this job done. Therefore, I do not want to put up an elaborate list of things which must be put right
    270
    when they may not make a contribution to the safety of the car on the road.
    I was also asked by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall about the car found to be too unsafe to go on the road at all. I shall have to look at the position from the longer term point of view, but I think that we can protect matters so that, at least, the owner can get the car home. Equally, however, we must try to preserve the position that he cannot go on using the car if it is generally unsafe. I will take careful account of that point when the detailed regulations are prepared.
    The last point put to me was the question of how quickly we propose to proceed. I do not want to throw this back in any way on what has been said, but if we are to make reasonably good progress we must make some use of the private garage industry, because otherwise I think the scheme will be almost indefinitely postponed. I shall see that the use we make of them is fair, reasonable and not subject to abuse.
    As I have said, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the case for spreading the load as widely as possible if we want to get on with this job. It will be done on a fee basis which should fairly cover the cost of installing the necessary equipment. If that is restricted to simple operations, it should not be unduly expensive. I want to make it plain that there is no question of any subsidy. The State will not pay for it; it must pay for itself.
    Mr. Strauss: Will any burden be put upon the local authorities?
    Mr. Watkinson: I was just about to elaborate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, as to what burden would be put upon the local authorities. I cannot accept his Amendment in those terms, but I give the assurance that no attempt will be made to pass any of this burden on to the local authorities. This must pay for itself, and in the discussions which my Department will have with the local authority associations we shall have to see how that can best be achieved.
    I quite understand that the County Councils Association might be, and probably is, perturbed about the possibility that a designated local authority would have for its pains only an increased

    271
    burden to bear. I can best answer that point by making two points of my own. First, I would not designate any local authority against its wish. It must be done by negotiation and agreement. If, therefore, a local authority said that it did not wish to be designated, for the reason of expense or any other reason, I would not press the matter, much less try to coerce it.
    Secondly, I hope that the fee charged for testing will be a standard one throughout the country. The question of the fee will have to be discussed thoroughly with all the interests concerned, including the local authorities, on the basis of making this a service which reasonably pays for itself. I hope I have made it plain that there is no question of placing any burden upon the local authorities, and I repeat that there is no question of them being forced to participate if they do not wish to do so.
    I cannot identify individual vehicles as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) asked me to do, but of course all cars over ten years will be caught. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), I have power in this Clause to exempt certain classes of vehicles, such as tractors, and I shall certainly see that we do not bring in classes of vehicles which it would be impossible or impracticable to include.
    As to the 18-year-old car, I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend has a good and serviceable one. If that is the case, it will pass the test and he will have the additional pride of knowing that it has done so, and it will not cost him anything or be any burden on anybody else. If what my hon. and gallant Friend said is right—and I think there is some truth in it—some of the old cars are better kept and safer, and there is nothing to worry about because they will certainly pass the test.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) raised a point about the men who will carry out the tests. I hope I have indicated that the garages will be carefully selected, not necessarily as to whether they are tied or free garages or whether they have modern premises or not. I think that any garage capable of carrying out repairs will have a corner which could be allocated for this purpose. I know that some
    272
    greasing bays today are beautiful and elaborate structures, but one would not expect these to be built specially for this task. However, it is important that my expert officers should choose a garage which is capable of doing the work properly, and in it there must be a suitable place so that the owner of the car knows where he is to go. In other words, the testing bay or corner of the garage must be indicated by a sign, and there must be a suitable mechanic available to carry out the test.
    Obviously, at this stage I cannot give any indication as to what steps we should take. I have indicated the steps we shall take to choose the garages, but I cannot say what steps we ought to take to ensure that there is an adequate standard of skill amongst the garage hands who will carry out the work. However. I have noted the point and I shall take it into account.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: Do I understand that the bay would have to be used exclusively for this purpose, or might the small garage owner use it for other purposes when it is not being used for tests?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a good point. I think it is possible that in some cases the greasing bay, with its hydraulic lift, might be used for both purposes. I do not want to place a greater burden on the garage industry than is necessary. At the moment it is wiser for me to indicate my general requirements only, and to leave the specific needs until we come to the negotiations with the trade.
    The answer to the question of avoidance or of not getting a sufficiently high standard is that at Hendon we have had a great deal of experience of brake-testing machines. There it is not a question of a man carrying out the test. There is a most accurate gauge which can be read and which records whether the brakes conform to a satisfactory standard or not. The skill of the operator does not enter into the matter because the machine does the job. Fortunately, it is not an expensive machine to mass-produce if necessary. I am trying to point out that we want a simple test, with simple yet practical machines doing most of the work. In this way there will be no necessity for a man to decide on his own experience and judgment whether

    273
    the standard of the vehicle is satisfactory or not. I hope it will be much more like reading a chart.
    Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked if this meant that I would not continue the spot check procedure. Of course, I have powers already to use that procedure under existing legislation. Those powers are tidied up and expanded in another part of the Bill and I consider it to be essential to have both. Spot checking on the road will, on certain occasions, be a useful incentive to people to have their cars tested voluntarily before their time has arrived. This I shall welcome as long as the testing stations can handle it; so the answer to my hon. Friend is that both spot checking and compulsory periodic checking once a year are both necessary if we are to get the results we want.
    I believe that I have answered most of the points raised in the general discussion, but I shall be pleased to answer any other detailed points later.
    Mr. Kirk: Could my right hon. Friend say something about my second point concerning regulations for safety? I do not want to press him if he has not got the answer now.
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tells me that a circular will be sent out shortly to the interested parties.
    Mr. Strauss: I want to ask one or two questions and to make some comments on what the Minister has said. First, may I ask a question which I should have asked previously? What is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to our Amendment, to add at the end of the new Clause:
    "The Minister shall lay annually before Parliament a report on the operation and the results of this and of the next following section"?
    I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection, but as we may have to vote on the Amendment, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether it is his intention to accept it.
    In the course of his remarks the Minister again emphasised the desirability of keeping these tests to the minimum and one agrees in principle. The Minister again said that the essentials were to test the brakes, steering and lights.
    274
    That is true, but I must repeat what I said, that there are a number of other components of great importance which ought to be tested. They would not take much time or require special apparatus. For example, a test should be made to see that the direction indicators are working properly. This might be exceedingly important on a rainy night because, if they are not working, an accident might be caused.
    5.0 p.m.
    The next test is to ensure that the windscreen wiper is working properly, which is equally important. The third is to make sure that there is a rear-view mirror. The fourth is to ensure that the tyres are in proper condition. A defective tyre may result in a blow-out and an appalling accident may take place involving death. I suggest that the compulsory testing should cover at least these other four things, and should not necessarily be confined to the three read out by the Minister, because that would be ridiculous.
    Next, has the Minister really said his last word about the relative importance of the private garage compared with what one might call the public authority garage for testing vehicles? At the moment I feel wholly dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. He told us that he will have to put a very great deal of reliance on the private garage. What does that mean? I still want to know. Does it mean that private garages will be used in exceptional cases only? If so, we do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. But I fear from the general tenor of his remarks that use of private garages will be the order rather than the exception. I do not think it is unreasonable of us, knowing the Government's prejudices against all forms of public enterprise, to feel that the Government will put much greater emphasis on the private garage than on the State or the local authority garage.
    I was not a bit convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against having State garages. I gathered that there were two arguments. One advanced in the Standing Committee was the difficulty of obtaining the necessary men. The number of men who would be involved, spread over the country, would not be so very great. As the Minister himself argued, some of the tests are

    275
    effectively done by machines, and highly skilled men are not required. I can confirm what the Minister said about the braking test, for I had the brakes of my car tested. One drives the car on to a certain apparatus and applies the brakes, and a column on which there are four glass dials shows whether or not the brakes are working effectively. Anybody could do that. It does not require a highly skilled man. It could well be done by someone who was invalided out of industry and could not do a strenuous job. We want people of good character who are able to discuss the matter and approach the motorist in the proper way, but we do not want highly skilled people to do these jobs. I should have thought that it would be sufficient to have one or two highly skilled people in charge of each garage. The Minister is wrong to put so much emphasis on that point.
    Secondly, he says that there will not be much money available for building the garages required for the task. I have two answers to that. First, it may not be necessary to build many garages, if any. Garages often change hands, and the Minister could take over some which are being sold and use them for this public service. He would then not have to put up so many buildings.
    Even if the Minister has to put up new buildings, they are not elaborate. Indeed, they are perfectly simple brick sheds. The total cost of putting up about 150 brick sheds, if they were all new ones, would be insignificant compared with the benefits which we can expect from the scheme, including the saving of hundreds of lives. It is ridiculous to suggest that there will not be the money to build sufficient garages or that it is not possible to use existing buildings for the purpose.
    Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us something much more persuasive than he has done so far in favour of the use of private garages as against public garages, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends and I shall wish to record our vote upon this very important matter when we reach our Amendments after having dealt with the Clause. We approve the Clause as a whole, but we believe that our important Amendments are absolutely essential to make the scheme a good one. We have also in mind that abuses are bound to arise if
    276
    private garages are doing this work to a considerable extent, and the whole system will then get into disrepute in the eyes of the motorists and the public generally. We do not want that to happen, and it should not happen. The work should be done by public enterprise. The only really effective method is to make it a public test. Only rarely should private garages do this important work.
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I might answer the right hon. Gentleman now. His last Amendment in the series asks me to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Clause. I take it that he means that it shall be a report once a year when the scheme is in full swing and that it should, presumably, record the number of cars tested. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will accept the principle that, once the scheme is in full operation, I should find a way of keeping Parliament informed of progress, the number of cars tested, and so on. I should not wish to bind myself to an annual report, although I would agree to finding a way of keeping Parliament properly informed about the progress of the operation.
    As to the right hon. Gentleman's other point, what he said was what I meant when I spoke about having, apart from a test of steering, brakes and lights, a condition of general safety. For example, if an examining mechanic saw that a tyre was slit inside and was likely to blow out, he would obviously inform the car owner so that he might put it right. Although I will take carefully into account what the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said, we have yet to have the necessary discussions and I do not think we want to have too long a list of the tests which have to be carried out to complete the inspection. I do not necessarily rule out windscreen wipers, trafficators, or anything else. I merely say that my desire is to restrict the list to the minimum number of items which are really necessary for the actual safety of the vehicle on the road.
    As to the most important point whether we do this as a State service or by means of a mixture of private and public enterprise, I cannot go any further than I have gone except to say that I think that most hon. Members would not, on the whole, disagree that we want the scheme in

    277
    operation in a reasonable time and we obviously cannot build up a great new chain of testing stations all over the country very quickly or very cheaply, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    What we will do is to examine most carefully all the ways of doing it. That is why the Clause has been drawn in its present form. I am advised, for example, that it may be possible to devise a mobile testing station which could be taken round scattered rural areas on a lorry and trailer and thus save motorists from having to drive considerable distances to have their vehicles tested. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) referred to this matter in relation to Scotland. We will certainly ascertain what facilities local authorities can offer us. We shall be very glad if they can offer us facilities.
    However, I really cannot bind myself at this stage to say that I will do it one way or the other. All I will say is that we want to do it as quickly as possible. I want to do it well and fairly. Provided that I am satisfied on those points, we must merely ascertain how we can best do it, bearing in mind that up to this moment it has not been possible to have discussions with anybody. We shall certainly see what we can first do through our own resources. Perhaps a mobile testing station might be useful. We shall then see what facilities local authorities can offer us. At the same time, we shall see what facilities private garages can offer. Out of all these things we shall try to pick what we think is a fair and reasonable method of doing the test and making it pay for itself. That is as far as I can go now.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming about laying a report before Parliament about the operation of the Clause? Surely it is reasonable for us to ask him to inform Parliament about how the testing works out and what results from it. There are various publications by the Ministry. We have the Annual Report on Road Accidents, which, although it comes out somewhat late, contains a very great deal of valuable information. The Minister is starting a most important undertaking, and we feel that it would be of value to Parliament to be informed about the results. I urge
    278
    the Minister to think about the matter again and to consider accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. Watkinson: It may be, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has just said, that we can add it to our accidents report. I do not want to commit myself to making a new and special report, but I will see whether we can add it to the accidents report, so that we can have an annual record of what is happening in these tests.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(ROAD-SAFETY INFORMATION AND ROAD TRAINING.)
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:
    (3) Where, not less than two months before the beginning of any financial year, the Minister on an examination of arrangements proposed to be made under the last foregoing subsection by a local authority in England or Wales, not being the council of a county or county borough, is satisfied that arrangements so made are likely to be effective and notifies the local authority that he is so satisfied, then from the beginning of that year until a notification by the Minister to the local authority that he is no longer so satisfied takes effect, the expenditure of the county council in respect of the cost of arrangements, or of contributions, made by the county council under the last foregoing subsection shall not be chargeable on the area of the first mentioned authority.
    A notification by the Minister that he is no longer satisfied as aforesaid shall take effect at the end of the financial year in which it is given or, if it is given during the last two months of a financial year, at the end of the next following financial year.
    This is an Amendment to give effect to a promise which I made in Committee. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) pointed out that there were cases in which ratepayers might have a reasonable ground of complaint if they were precepted by the county council for road safety purposes. Where a non-county borough or urban district in England or Wales incurs expenditure on its own scheme for road safety information and road training and does not therefore need to participate in the county scheme, it seems unjust that it should be precepted for the benefit of the county. I said in Committee that we were satisfied that there was a point of

    279
    substance in that view, and the Amendment gives effect to the undertaking which I gave.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add:
    This subsection shall not apply to the administrative county of London.
    I hope that the Committee will realise that in moving this Amendment I do not desire to put London in a separate category for any other than practical reasons. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment is now drafted, it would have an unfortunate effect in the case of the London County Council—a body unique in the structure of English local government. There is no area within the boundaries of the London County Council which is not in fact already covered by one of the 28 Metropolitan borough councils or the Common Council of the City of London.
    Circumstances could easily arise where every one of the 28 Metropolitan boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London were engaging in road safety propaganda of one kind or another. Each of those authorities could therefore get the special sanction which it is proposed to confer upon them under the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment. The result would be that the largest local authority in the country— indeed, in the world—would have no funds with which to conduct its own road safety propaganda. I am informed that that is the legal position, and that there would be no way under existing law whereby the county council could finance any road safety propaganda.
    It is obvious that a body like London County Council might feel it desirable to undertake road safety activity in connection with the 440,000 children in its schools. Under the Minister's new Amendment it would have no resources to do that work. Because London County Council, being a precepting authority of this kind, is in an exceptional position, we hope that the Minister will sympathetically consider my Amendment. It is clear that any action which the county council took would equally benefit any one of the 28 Metropolitan boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London. In London, any of the work done by the L.C.C. would undoubtedly
    280
    benefit the whole of the county but, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment now stands, London County Council would have the greatest difficulty in paying for any work which it wanted to do.
    5.15 p.m.
    I understand that the Amendment has the support at any rate of a number of the Metropolitan borough councils, if not all of them, and there is no rivalry among the authorities in London on this matter. In the past the county council has always been able to make very satisfactory arrangements for joint activities of this kind with the boroughs. I am advised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment would put the county council in a particularly embarrassing position. If some boroughs undertook safety work and some did not it would mean levying a special rate. I hope that on these purely practical grounds the Minister will be able to make an exception in the case of London County Council.
    Mr. Molson: I am sure that we have all listened with interest and some degree of sympathy to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has said on behalf of the London County Council. I fear, however, that I cannot advise the Committee to accept his Amendment. I say that for three reasons. The first is that the principle put forward in the Standing Committee, and which commended itself to the Committee, is one which is obviously equitable and which ought to be of general application. I do not feel that a special exception should be made in the case of London County Council.
    The second reason is that, on the whole, the Metropolitan boroughs are in a better position to operate effective road safety schemes in their areas than is the more remote London County Council. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying tribute to the extremely effective work being. done by a number of Metropolitan boroughs. Thirdly, we have received representations from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee supporting the principle embodied in my Amendment.
    The hon. Member's Amendment would put London County Council in an exceptional position. London County Council's present contribution to road safety

    281
    now consists only of a £60 subscription to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and a further subscription last year of £2,370 towards the cost of the training and exhibition centre at ROSPA House. Although the Royal Society would feel the loss of that subscription, it would not be unreasonable for the Metropolitan boroughs, which under this Amendment would be able to contract out of an obligation to pay a precept, themselves to undertake that responsibility. In view of the attitude which has been taken by the Metropolitan boroughs, it would be better for us not to accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Mr, Skeffington: I have listened to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said: it was a very discouraging answer for London County Council. It has pursued a number of safety activities in past years. There are also great possibilities in connection with more than 400,000 schoolchildren. The Government Amendment will deprive it of the opportunity of carrying out this sort of work. I hope that the Minister will think again about this matter.
    Furthermore, it is not my information—the Minister's information may be later—that all the Metropolitan boroughs subscribed to the point of view which he has now put forward. I understand that that was not so in the case of Westminster, and Lambeth and others. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this matter, because the Government Amendment will place the London County Council in a very unfortunate position. It will not be able to take much part in this very necessary propaganda work in future if it has no funds with which to do so.
    Mr. Ede: Can the Minister tell us exactly how far he has got with his communications with the Metropolitan borough councils? From the answer which he has made he seems to assume that all the Metropolitan borough councils would agree to carry on the work. If they do the activities of the London County Council in this subject would be brought to an end at once. I do not know how far, as the local education authority, it would he able to deal with instruction in road safety to children in schools. It might be able to, or it might not. It certainly would not be able to do so as the road safety authority if all the
    282
    borough councils availed themselves of the opportunity given them in the Clause.
    Let us assume that the two borough councils mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) do not come in. In that case the London County Council remains the road safety authority for them, and may spend money within their borders—but it must be very careful not to charge any of that money to the other twenty-six councils, or to the county council. We shall then have one of those amazing and awkward things, namely, a special expenses rate, levied upon the one or two or more boroughs—not reaching the total of twenty-eight—which have not come into the scheme. That would be a very unfortunate result for any local authority to have to face. The Minister might enlighten us as to how far that point of view has been considered, and what is the real effect of any communication which he has had from the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee or the Metropolitan boroughs separately.
    Mr. Molson: As a result of the discussion which took place in Committee we got in touch with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. That Committee speaks for the Metropolitan boroughs as a whole, and we really cannot enter into discussions with individual Metropolitan boroughs when they have this Standing Joint Committee to represent them. It was when we were considering how to give effect to the promise which I made to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that we discussed the matter with the Committee. It informed us that it supported the Amendment.
    I am quite willing to give further consideration to the points which have been raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), but I must make it quite plain that, as at present advised, I do not think we shall alter the view which we have formed. I made what amounted to a promise on behalf of the Government, and we must carry out that promise. I see great difficulty in making a special exception to the general provisions of the law in favour of the London County Council. I have already indicated that

    283
    up to the present time—I am not in any way reproaching the London County Council in this matter—excellent road safety propaganda is carried on in London, and it is the work of the Metropolitan boroughs. Up to the present time the activities of the London County Council in this respect have been extremely small, although the subscriptions which it has made to the Royal Society have been valuable.
    Therefore, I do not think that, from what I have heard today, there would be any justification for accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which I think would introduce an anomaly into the law. In view of what has been said, however, I gladly undertake to look at the matter again, and if I am convinced about it there is still, fortunately, an opportunity of effecting an Amendment elsewhere.
    Mr. Skeffington: I do not want to be unduly importunate, but I would point out that, because of its peculiar structure and status, the London County Council is already an exception in a great number of other local government matters. The whole system of precepting in London is different from that in other areas. It has its own special powers in a number of respects. It is a housing authority, which other county councils are not. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not feel that because my Amendment to the proposed Amendment would make the London County Council an exception in this respect, that is the end of the matter. The London County Council is bound to be an exception, because of its artificial creation in 1888 out of other existing counties and because of its special position as capital of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will bear that fact in mind in reconsidering the whole matter.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 15, leave out "the last foregoing subsection" and insert:
    "subsection (2) of this section."—[Mr. Watkinson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause I2.—(PROVISION OF PARKING PLACES WHERE CHARGES MADE.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, after the second "of", to insert "Part I of".
    This Amendment is really consequential upon the next one, in page 11, line 4, at the end to insert:
    (5) if it appears to the Minister that it is expedient for the purposes of this section that, with a view to experiment or demonstration, parking places on highways should be designated at any sites in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, and that no application under this section for the designation thereof is forthcoming, the Minister may by order made in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act designate those parking places for vehicles or vehicles of any class or description specified in the order, and may make charges for vehicles left in the parking places of such amount as is hereinafter specified; and—

    (a) in relation to parking places designated by virtue of this subsection references in subsection (3) of this section and in the two next following sections to the local authority shall be construed as references to the Minister;

    (b) if the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, enters into an agreement with the local authority or the London County Council for the transfer to the authority or Council of the operation of the parking place, the operation thereof, and such apparatus or other things held by, and rights or liabilities of, the Minister in conection with the parking place as may be specified in the agreement shall be transferred as from such date and on such terms (including terms as to the making of payments to or by the Minister) as may be so specified;

    (c) from the taking effect of any such transfer as aforesaid the order designating the parking place to which the transfer relates shall have effect subject to such modifications (if any) as the Minister may direct, being amendments appearing to him requisite in consequence of the transfer, and the provisions of this Act relating to parking places and to the variation and revocation of orders shall thereafter apply as if the parking place had been designated by order made on the application of the council to which the transfer is made.

    (6) An order under the last foregoing subsection shall not continue in force for longer than two years from the coming into operation thereof together with such further period (if any) not exceeding twelve months as the Minister may by order made at any time before the expiration of the order under the last foregoing subsection prescribe:
    Provided that this subsection shall cease to have effect as respects any parking place on the making in relation thereto of an agreement under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection.

    285
    Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed them both together, Sir Rhys?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): They can be discussed together, if that meets the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Certainly, Sir Rhys.
    Mr. Watkinson: When we considered this question, which deals with the subject of London traffic, we found that there was an omission in the Bill as originally presented. I can best explain how it came to notice by reminding the Committee of a recent action by the City of Westminster. I am grateful to the City of Westminster for the great interest which it is taking in the immensely difficult parking and traffic problems which lie within its area. As a result of the interest which it has taken it has given a great deal of examination to the problem, and a special sub-committee of the Westminster City Council has recommended:
    "That the Council do inform the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation that it views with growing concern the worsening of traffic conditions in inner London caused by the increase in the parking of cars in streets and it suggests that in order that the effect of parking meters on congestion may be assessed an experiment with such meters should be undertaken as soon as possible on the understanding that the various regulations relating to parking cars will be effectively enforced."
    We expect that, as our parking plans develop, other local authorities in London will take the view that the right way to deal with the parking meter is to experiment with it. There is a very sound precedent for all this in the traffic schemes which the police have set up, on an experimental basis for a purely limited period, to see how they work, and what is the response of the motoring public.
    Under the Bill as it was drafted, I found that I had not the powers to assist a local authority in a scheme of this kind if I wished to do so. Equally, I found that if certain local authorities decided to install parking meters and another local authority, surrounded by them, decided not to do so, I should not be able to help the authority in the centre which, perhaps, felt that it ought not to
    286
    introduce these meters unless it had some help from me. I should not be able to run an experimental scheme to try to show it that this method of controlling parking might be helpful in its area.
    5.30 p.m.
    Therefore, the purpose of these two Amendments is merely to give me a very limited power so as to enable me to show that these parking plans can be worked successfully, and, equally, to enable me to work with those London authorities who want to carry out experimental schemes. Of course, if the authorities are willing to carry out such schemes entirely on their own, my help will be largely of an advisory nature, but I want powers to set up parking meters, for which I shall bear the burden for a limited time, and to try to show that they provide a practical method for controlling parking.
    I think that I ought to make it clear that my power to run any parking place is expressly limited to two years with the possibility of an extension for a further twelve months, but that in any event it cannot be for a period longer than three years. It is not my intention to accept any permanent responsibility for the operation of parking places, but merely, as I have said, to assist local authorities in much the same way as do the police in experimental traffic schemes.
    The remainder of the material on the Order Paper really deals with the various safeguards and with matters concerning the cost of the experiment. Here, again, I should perhaps make plain that in the same way as I am limited to a definite period during which the scheme can be run, so I am limited as regards the money that I may collect. At the end of such a scheme the money has to be passed over to the appropriate local authority except that, of course. I can recover any direct cost of the scheme before I hand over the balance.
    Perhaps I might sum up by saying that I think that this is a useful addition which will enable me to respond to what seems to be a desire on the part of at least some important authorities in London to use the parking meter as a method for controlling the alarming growth of congestion in the streets due to cars being left for long periods. Therefore, I hope that with that explanation the Committee will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: As the Minister stated, this Amendment remedies an omission in the Bill. It is rather remarkable that there should have been so many gaps to be filled in during the passage of the Bill in view of the fact that it is the second Bill which we have had before us and in view of the time which was spent on the Second Readings of the two Bills—on the first one in another place—and the long period of the Committee stage. But, be that as it may, we on this side of the Committee have no objection to the Amendment.
    I was glad that the Minister used the word "experimental" because many of us have some doubts as to the way in which the parking meter will operate in this country and to what extent it will be effective. Any experiment to lessen traffic congestion in London is certainly to be welcomed and it is hoped that the scheme will succeed. Many of us have doubts about certain aspects of the effectiveness of the parking meter and it is as well that the Minister should be enabled to undertake some experimental schemes to see to what extent they are acceptable to local authorities.
    I should be glad if the Minister would tell us who will be responsible for enforcing the time limit on the meters. When the time has expired and the signal on the meter shows that the time has expired, who is to be responsible for imposing the fine, the summons, or whatever the penalty may be, upon the motorist? That was never really made clear in Standing Committee, and I am still uncertain as to what exactly the Minister has in mind on this point. If he is to run these car parks, does he intend to employ attendants whose duty it will be to accost the motorist when he returns and finds that his time has expired? It would be helpful if the Minister could make quite clear what he has in mind in this regard.
    Has the Minister any schemes in mind for installing parking meters in the centre of London? Again, in Standing Committee, we were never given any very clear indication as to what exactly the Minister had in mind concerning the areas in which parking meters are to be installed or whether they are to be in the side streets, in the squares, or in the main traffic arteries. Nor has the Minister given any clear indication as
    288
    to the protection to be afforded for access to buildings in the neighbourhood of these parking places. As this will probably be our only opportunity to discuss the question of car parks, perhaps the Minister could be a little more explicit about what he has in mind.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to support this admirable Amendment which extends the power of the Minister. In the Standing Committee I did not observe the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) or any of his hon. Friends raise any criticism which led to the increase of these necessary powers, but I remember that a number of us raised the question whether the designation of parking places should not remain entirely the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. I think that the conclusion come to was that, on balance, it was better for the local authorities to administer the scheme. But it is clearly necessary for the Minister to have some further residual powers, which he takes under this Amendment, to enable him to operate the experiments of designation where the local authority does not come fully up to the mark.
    I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me whether I am right in supposing that in London he will ensure that a sufficiently wide area is taken to ensure that the scheme is a thoroughly successful experiment, because we all know that the London driver today is peculiarly cunning at getting round the parking provisions. We are all sinners in this respect. We first try to find a parking place and then find that we cannot get into it. With great ingenuity we are prepared to drive up on to the pavement in, say, Park Lane and park our cars outside somebody's private house. That is being done every day. It seems to me, therefore, that the Report of the Traffic Advisory Committee—and the Report of the Ministry of Transport upon which, I presume, the Minister will rely as to the number of places to be designated—is really insufficient.
    At one time I went into this matter very carefully and prepared a scheme covering certain areas in London. It would seem, for example, that if we take an area such as the district around Harrods we must ensure that all the surrounding squares and the area at the back of Harrods are covered by parking places,

    289
    because, otherwise, people will avoid going to the places where they have to pay to park and will go a bit further afield. If that happened, it would merely mean that the congestion would be driven from the centre of London to the surrounding residential districts. For that reason the Minister may have to take an area which covers not only Westminster, but also Chelsea and perhaps the City of London. I am not certain that the Minister has taken sufficient powers under this Amendment to ensure that he will be able to take in an area which can be blanketed so effectively that the whole of it can be fully covered with parking places, thus preventing people from evading their responsibilities in the matter. That is the worry which I have had throughout about parking meters.
    I have always been a protagonist of them as one of the solutions, taken collectively with others, to meet the traffic congestion problem. But they will fail—and I think that they will only fail—if people are able to leave an area where there are parking meters and go to another area where there are no parking meters. I should like to see them brought into force in the whole of the centre of the West End of London at the same time, with altogether about 2,500 parking places, which is considerably in excess of double the number recommended in the Report.
    If that can be done, I think that the scheme will be successful and that after the initial pains of screaming motorists who have to pay for the first few weeks, we shall go on to what has been the accepted feeling of motorists and other people in other parts of the world where, in a short space of time, they have come to accept parking meters as a satisfactory provision which is for the benefit of all concerned.
    Mr. H. Hynd: I am one of those who favour the possible introduction of parking meters. I think that they will be for the convenience of motorists and of the local authority, and that if a reasonable charge is imposed they should not cause very great hardship, except on one section of the community. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in setting up his experimental scheme, he has thought about how
    290
    he can avoid the infliction of severe hardship on disabled people.
    There are many ex-Service men suffering from war wounds, victims of industrial injuries and members, for example, of the Infantile Paralysis Fellowship who must use motor-propelled vehicles. If they have to pay a parking meter charge every time they park their vehicles, I can see that those people, who are usually not very well able to afford such charges, will be under a special handicap.
    I should like to draw this point to the attention of the Minister, and ask him whether he has thought about it, and whether he has any solution to offer as to how such people can be dealt with in connection with the parking of motor-propelled vehicles.
    Mr. Oliver: One point which intrigues me in respect of parking meters is how the Ministry's scheme will be put into operation. Is it intended that the parking meters should merely register the sums or the time for which coins are put in the box? There seems to be no explanation as to how any excess is to be collected.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and I were in New York together for about a fortnight before Christmas we went to a number of parking places where there was not one meter that was not registering an excess. I am told that this is a simple matter in the United States because the police impose the charge; but that does not apply here.
    What system are we intending to work with regard to these experimental meters? Is it intended to have a parking attendant to collect the fee when a motorist continues to park in a position in excess of the period for which he has paid. If not, what means will there be of collecting the excess if a motorist drives away? Will there be any check or any prospect of getting the fee which he ought to have paid? That seems to be the problem in deciding whether we should be in favour of this experimental scheme.
    We want to know a little more about what the Minister has in mind, because if there is to be an attendant to see that no one gets away when there is excess on the charge for which the motorist has paid, what is the purpose of having the

    291
    meters at all? I should like this matter to be explained so that we can come to some reasonable conclusion about what the Minister has in mind.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Molson:It is very agreeable to us to find that, at this late stage in the discussion of the Bill, no hon. Member has risen to express hostility to parking meters. When the Bill was introduced originally there was loud protest at the idea of the introduction of this useful contrivance. I think that it is as a result of the general discussion which has taken place, and of the fact that parking meters are working so satisfactorily in Canada, the United States, New Zealand and other places overseas, that opinion in this country has changed.
    I am very glad to have the opportunity of explaining somewhat fully to hon. Members how we have it in mind to try to work the parking meter system. First, let me say that we are under no illusion that the use of parking meters will increase the amount of parking accommodation in London. The effect of them will be to ensure that no single, selfish person is able to peg out a claim in a part of a street for the lifelong day. Such parking space as there is will be more fairly and equitably divided among those who have occasion to leave a car in a parking place for a reasonably short time.
    We also fully recognise that it is desirable to provide greatly increased off-the-street parking accommodation for cars that are to be there for a long time. It has, I think, done a great deal to disarm criticism of these proposals that the whole of the profits made from parking meters are obliged, under the provisions of the Bill, to be used for the provision of off-the-street parking accommodation. What might appear at first sight to be a slight exception to that is contained in the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved. But that exception is more apparent than real, as he is only intending to use—and, indeed, can only use—these powers in order to give a start to the experiment. At the conclusion of three years, at the longest, he will be obliged to hand the parking meter organisation over to a local authority.
    I want also to say, in order to disarm criticism in advance, that the parking
    292
    meter system is no more incapable of abuse than any other human device. We are fully willing to admit that the ingenuity of man will be exercised to try to defeat the purpose of the scheme; and that can be avoided only by careful supervision and, let me add, by the willingness which generally we can rely upon among the British people to co-operate with the Government when something is being introduced which is deemed to be for the general benefit.
    Having said that by way of precaution, I will now try to describe in fuller detail exactly how we intend that the scheme should work. Parking places where a charge may be made for parking on the highway will be appointed by the Minister by orders made under the Bill. When applications for the appointment of such parking places are made by local authorities, they will be considered by the Minister before he makes an order to determine whether he approves of the general scheme of which they are part. Parking schemes should each cover a fairly wide area and should take into account, in addition to parking meters, existing and planned parking accommodation off the street.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will accept my thanks for the constant propaganda he has gone in for in favour of the experiments being on a sufficiently large scale. He certainly convinced me that if they are too small, the only effect will be to drive cars out of one street into the next. I am glad to say that the police recognise that the parking meters will be effective only if they are able and willing to enforce no-parking restrictions in places where parking meters do not exist or where parking is not otherwise authorised.
    Once parking places have been appointed, they will be run by the local authority or, in particular cases, by my right hon. Friend under the provisions of the new Clause, and attendants will be appointed to look after them. The attendants will look out for and report infringements of the regulations, report defective meters and generally supervise the parking places.
    The question of excess charges has caused a good deal of confusion in the public mind. I understand that in some

    293
    countries the police have powers to accept fines on the spot without going through the procedure of the courts. Obviously, that would great simplify the administration of parking meters. In this country, however, we are opposed to anything of that kind, which, quite obviously, would, or might, lead to abuse. We therefore propose a different method. As hon. Members will be aware, the Sharpe Committee, which recently considered expediting the procedure in police courts, expressly recommended against the adoption of any scheme of that kind.
    Parking places will be intended to cater for short-term parkers. In these parking places, a motorist will be allowed to leave his car for a standard period, probably for two hours, on payment of a specified charge. It will be a fairly modest charge, because short-term parking on the road with the help of a parking meter is considered to be a legitimate thing to do. The parking meter will indicate when the period of time paid for may be deemed to have expired. From that moment, the driver of the car will become liable to pay the excess charge.
    That is no fine. It is an additional rent for the use of the space on the road. It is intended that that excess charge shall be very substantially in excess of the small charge which is paid for the standard period. The amount of the excess charge will be fixed by order. Only if a car remains in the parking place beyond the total period covered by the excess charge will an offence be committed.
    Mr. Royle: Can the Minister give any idea of what that "small charge" will be?
    Mr. Molson: I do not mind giving an idea, provided it is perfectly plain that I am only giving an idea and am in no way binding my right hon. Friend. The kind of thing we have in mind would be 1s. for the first hour and 2s. for two hours, but we also have in mind that the excess charge for staying for two hours and ten minutes might be 7s. 6d. or 10s.; so that there is a jump from the small charge for the legitimate use of the parking meter for a limited and proper period up to the excess charge.
    Mr. Albert Evans: If the Minister proposes an excess charge of as much as 7s. 6d., is it not more in the nature of a fine than rent for the use of the road?
    Mr. Molson: I am not getting into the realm of theoretical jurisprudence in considering what the nature of a fine may be, but I would say that a fine is the punishment imposed by a court for committing an offence—I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate on the bench beside me and I trust I am not going wrong in these legal matters—whereas the excess charge to which I have referred is a charge made for the use of the highway and does not in any way involve the commission of an offence.
    Mr. W. T. Proctor: Is the Minister laying down the precise figures which he has just announced?
    Mr. Molson: I made it quite plain that I was not in any way prejudging what the charge would be.
    Mr. Proctor: I see.
    Mr. Molson: I was merely indicating that for the standard period the charge would be small and the excess charge would be heavy.
    The attendant in charge of a parking place will record the particulars of any car left at a meter which indicates that the time has expired. He will place on the car a note containing a statement of the time he first observed that it had become liable for the excess charge. The note will also indicate how and when the excess charge should be paid. We have in mind that the excess charge will be sent by post to the local authority which is responsible for the parking-meter system in the area.
    Any car remaining in a parking place after the expiry of the time paid for, plus the maximum time allowed after the excess charge has been incurred, will not only be committing an offence but will also be liable to be removed from the parking place; and the cost of removing and storing it will be recoverable from the driver. That is obviously necessary as otherwise there might be cases when a car would be left beside a parking meter throughout the whole of one day and then throughout the night and be there the day after.

    295
    6.0 p.m.
    I have responded to the requests of hon. Members to indicate how we intend to work this system. I have made it plain that we have not worked out all the details and that very wide powers are given by the Bill to my right hon. Friend to make regulations dealing with this matter. It will therefore be possible for there to be complete flexibility about special problems. For example, those in the market towns may very well be different from the problems to be dealt with in London.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: When the regulations are laid before the House, will there be opportunity at a later stage to discuss their provisions?
    Mr. Molson: The regulations will be laid before the House.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister deal with the point I raised about disabled people who have to use motor-propelled or self-propelled vehicles?
    Mr. Molson: We shall certainly look into the question of these vehicles and the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I must make it plain that it will not be possible for us to make a large number of exceptions in favour of vehicles of special categories.
    Commander Agnew: Will the House be able to amend the regulations or has it either to accept or reject them?
    Mr. Molson: The House will not be able to amend them.
    Mr. John Harvey: I may not have followed closely enough the arguments of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Would it be possible for a person who has booked a parking space to put another coin into the meter before the expiry of the first period and in that way to avoid the excess charge?
    Mr. Molson: That is the exact point I had in mind when I indicated that this system would not be completely proof against people who set out to defeat the purpose of it. It will be necessary for the attendant to make sure that that is not done. It will be an offence for a person to put in a coin of the same value at the end of a short period in order to obtain an excess period without paying the excess charge.
    Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Will the wage paid to the person in charge of the parking meters be adequate so that it will be understood by the public that it is not necessary to give him gratuities to make his life worth living, as happens at the moment wherever we go?
    Mr. Molson: That is obviously an administrative matter, a question of sound administration, which does not arise when we are discussing legislation.
    Mr. Champion: Will the Minister make sure in his regulations, so far as is humanly possible, that someone else cannot put a coin into a meter on behalf of another person? I read of a case in America in which someone, seeing that the time was just about to expire, had put a suitable coin—a nickel—into the meter and had then stuck a label on the car window, saying, "We have put one nickel into the meter. This comes to you by courtesy of"—and then followed the name of some advertising agency.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 4, at end insert:
    (5) If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient for the purposes of this section that, with a view to experiment or demonstration, parking places on highways should be designated at any sites in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London. and that no application under this section for the designation thereof is forthcoming, the Minister may by order made in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act designate those parking places for vehicles or vehicles of any class or description specified in the order, and may make charges for vehicles left in the parking places of such amount as is hereinafter specified; and—

    (a) in relation to parking places designated by virtue of this subsection references in subsection (3) of this section and in the two next following sections to the local authority shall be construed as references to the Minister;

    (b) if the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, enters into an agreement with the local authority or the London County Council for the transfer to the authority or Council of the operation of the parking place. the operation thereof, and such apparatus or other things held by, and rights or liabilities of, the Minister in connection with the parking place as may be specified in the agreement shall be transferred as from such date and on such terms (including terms as to the making of payments to or by the Minister) as may be so specified;

    (c) from the taking effect of any such transfer as aforesaid the order designating the parking place to which the transfer

    297
    relates shall have effect subject to such modifications (if any) as the Minister may direct, being amendments appearing to him requisite in consequence of the transfer, and the provisions of this Act relating to parking places and to the variation and revocation of orders shall thereafter apply as if the parking place had been designated by order made on the application of the council to which the transfer is made.

    (6) An order under the last foregoing subsection shall not continue in force for longer than two years from the coming into operation thereof together with such further period (if any) not exceeding twelve months as the Minister may by order made at any time before the expiration of the order under the last foregoing subsection prescribe:
    Provided that this subsection shall cease to have effect as respects any parking place on the making in relation thereto of an agreement under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection.—[Mr. Watkinson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 22.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO PRODUCTION AND SURRENDER OF DRIVING LICENCES, ETC.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, at the end to insert:
    "and, in relation to a vehicle to which section (Obligatory test certificates) of this Act applies, as if references to a certificate of insurance included references to a test certificate issued as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section".
    This is a consequential Amendment connected with the new obligation for a test certificate on the satisfactory condition of vehicles, the obligatory test certificate. It is necessary to have the Amendment to ensure that the provisions of Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which confers power upon the police to require the production of test certificates, really bite in relation to vehicles which may become subject in the future to testing under the provisions of the new Clause which we shall propose, as do the provisions which require the production of a driver's certificate of insurance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made; In page 18, line 33, leave out from "that" to end of line 34, and insert:
    "the obligation to produce a certificate of insurance or similar document or a test certificate".—[Mr. Watkinson]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 36.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 27, line 20, after "Exchequer", to insert:
    "any receipts of the Minister under this Act and".
    The Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment about the testing of vehicles, giving the Minister power to designate parking places, which we have just been discussing. It is necessary to provide that the moneys shall be paid into the Exchequer, since they are not at present covered by Clause 36 (2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 37.—(APPLICATION TO CROWN.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 27, line 40, at the end to insert:
    (3) Subsection (1) of section forty of the Act of 1930, in so far as it provides for the production of test certificates and the giving of names and addresses, shall apply to a person in connection with any vehicle to which section (Obligatory test certificates) of this Act applies notwithstanding that he or the vehicle is or was at any material time in the public service of the Crown.
    The purposes of the Amendment is to ensure that any person in charge of a Crown vehicle or any person on Crown service, is not, on that account, relieved of the obligation, where it would otherwise rest upon him, to produce a test certificate for the vehicle. This is subject to Crown vehicles coming under the testing requirements, as they probably will.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I could not quite understand the explanation which the Minister has given. I am not quite clear whether a Crown vehicle ten years old will come under the testing provisions.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes.
    Mr. Ede: Will "Crown vehicle" include the military vehicles of the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should like to look into that point. Perhaps I can let the right hon. Gentleman know, when I have done so. What I meant was the vehicle like a Post Office delivery van, which is very much the same kind of vehicle as any other.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 28, line 12, at the end to insert:
    "test certificate" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of section (Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles) of this Act.

    New Clause.—(TESTS OF SATISFACTORY CONDITION OF VEHICLES.)
    5

    (1) The provisions of this and the next following section shall have effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether the prescribed statutory requirements relating to the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment are complied with.

    (2) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the examination of
    vehicles submitted for examination under this section and for the issue, where it is found on such an examination that the said requirements are complied with, of a certificate (hereinafter referred to as a "test certificate") that at the date of the examination the requirements were complied with in relation to the vehicle.

    10

    (3) Examinations for the purposes of this section shall be carried out by persons, not being officers of the Minister, authorised for those purposes by the Minister (hereinafter referred to as "authorised examiners"), by inspectors appointed by the Minister, or by inspectors appointed by any council of a county, county borough or large burgh (within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947) designated by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

    15

    20

    (4) Where a test certificate is refused, the inspector or examiner shall issue a notification of the refusal stating the grounds thereof, and any
    person aggrieved by the refusal or the grounds thereof may appeal to the Minister; and on any such appeal the Minister shall cause a further examination to be made and either issue a test certificate or issue such a notification as aforesaid.

    (5) For the purposes of their functions under this section the Minister or a council designated for the purposes of this section may provide and maintain—

    (a) stations where examinations under this section may be carried out, and

    (b) apparatus for carrying out such examinations.

    25

    (6) The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this section and for prescribing anything authorised by this section to be prescribed, and in particular as to—

    (a) the authorisation of examiners, the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised examiners and the withdrawal of authorisations;

    30

    (b) the manner in which, conditions under which, and apparatus with which examinations are carried out, the maintenance of that apparatus in an efficient state, and the inspection of premises at which and apparatus with which examinations are being, or are to be, carried out;

    35

    (c) the manner in which applications may be made for the examination of 35 vehicles under this section, the manner in which and,time within which appeals may be brought under subsection (4) of this section, the information to be supplied and documents to be produced on such an application. examination or appeal, the fees to be paid on such an application or appeal, and the repayment of the whole or a part of the fee paid on such an appeal where it appears to the Minister that there were substantial grounds for contesting the whole or part of the decision appealed against;

    40

    45

    (d) the form of, and particulars to be contained in, test certificates and notifications of the refusal thereof, and the supply by the Minister of forms for such certificates and notifications and the charges to be made for the supply thereof;

    (e) the issue of duplicates of test certificates lost or defaced and the fee to be paid for the issue thereof;

    50

    (f) the keeping by designated councils and authorised examiners of registers of test certificates in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, and the inspection of such registers by such persons and in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

    (g) the keeping of records by designated councils and authorised examiners and the furnishing by them of returns and information to the Minister;

    55

    and regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of cases.

    (7) If any person with intent to deceive falsely represents himself to be, or to be employed by, an authorised examiner he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term net exceeding three months or both such fine and such imprisonment.

    This is a formal Amendment, required because the phrase "test certificate" is used in various other provisions imported into the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    60

    (8) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1930 (which relate to forgery and other offences committed as respects certificates of insurance and other documents) shall apply to test certificates as they apply to certificates of insurance.

    65

    (9) The powers conferred by this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Watkinson]

    Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
    Amendment proposed: In line 10, to leave out from "out" to "by" in line 12.—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 171.

    Division No. 196.

    AYES

    [6.8 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Foster, John

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Maddan, Martin

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Glover, D.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Banks, Col. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Barter, John

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwioh)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Green, A.

    Maude, Angus

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Body, R. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Harvey, John (Wa thamstow, E.)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Braine, B. R.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Bryan, P.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Page, R. G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Partridge, E.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral .

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Channon, H.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pott, H. P.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hylton-Foster, sir H. B. H.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmayne, M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Robertson, Sir David

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, D.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Keegan, D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Russell, R. S.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kimball, M.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Dun an, Capt. J. A. L.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Legge-Bourke, Ma. E. A. H.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Teeling, W.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Barber.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Paton, John

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pearson, A.

    Anderson, Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hoy, J. H.

    Probert, A. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Benson, G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Beswick, F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reid, William

    Boardman, H.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Ross, William

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Royle, C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Short, E. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Champion, A. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Clunie, J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Snow, J. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Cronin, J. D.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McInnes, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mahon, Simon

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Thornton, E.

    Dye, S.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Messer, Sir P.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Weitzman, D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Finch, H. J.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    West, D. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mort, D. L.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Moyle, A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Gibson, C. W.

    MuIley, F. W.

    Wigg, George

    Gooch, E. C.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willey, Frederick

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Orbach, M.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oswald, T.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grey, C. F.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Zil lacus, K.

    Hannan, W.

    Parker, J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parkin, B. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Deer and Mr. Simmons.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(OBLIGATORY TEST CERTIFICATES.)
    (1) Any person who uses on a road or causes or permits to be so used a motor vehicle to which this section applies and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the last twelve months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

    (2) The motor vehicles to which this section applies at any time are those first registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, or the Roads Act, 1920, not less than ten years before that time: Provided that this section shall not apply to public service vehicles adapted to carry eight or more passengers, to tramcars, to trolley buses, or to vehicles of such classes or descriptions as may be prescribed, and the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall apply only to vehicles for the time being registered as aforesaid with such councils as may be specified in the order.

    (3) The Minister may by order made by statutory instrument direct that the last foregoing subsection shall have effect with the substitution for ten years of such shorter period as may be specified in the order. An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

    (4) The Minister may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) of this section the use of vehicles for such purposes as may be prescribed.

    (5) The Minister may by regulations provide that where application is made for a licence under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, for a vehicle to which this section applies, the licence shall not be granted except after production of a test certificate relating to the vehicle and issued within twelve months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, before the date from which the licence is to be in force.

    (6) In this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations of the Minister, and the power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Warkinson]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause deals with the second part of the Bill and concerns the compulsory testing of motor vehicles. The first new Clause we have dealt with deals with the establishment and running of testing stations. This Clause sets out what vehicles must be taken to those stations and at what intervals and the sanctions for non-observance. I will remind the Committee of the main points of the Clause. Subsection (1) makes it an offence to use on the roads a motor vehicle to which the Clause applies and in respect of which no test certificate has been issued within the last twelve months.
    Subsection (2) specifies vehicles which must undergo the tests and they are defined as vehicles first registered not less than ten years ago. It is only intended to start with the provision for vehicles older than ten years and it is the policy progressively to expand the field in which a much large number of motor cars will eventually fall under the test requirements.
    Subsection (2) exempts
    "public service vehicles adapted to carry eight or more passengers"
    306
    and trams and trolley buses, because the road-worthiness of those vehicles is dealt with under existing legislation. It enables me to exempt by regulation vehicles of specified classes or descriptions and to restrict the testing to vehicles registered at the material time with specified local taxation authorities.
    That enables the system of testing to be made compulsory by stages and by selection. For example, it would be possible to apply it first only to private cars or to goods vehicles up to a certain weight and to exempt all other classes. The purpose is to make the provisions flexible and to bring in the testing of vehicles at a reasonable speed so that the testing stations may be able to cope.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether goods vehicles are to be included in the inspection? I think that this is the first time it has been suggested that goods vehicles would be subject to the testing.
    Mr. Watkinson: Because of the capacity of the testing stations, I think that at first the testing will have to be restricted to private cars. I wish to consider the question of including some light goods vehicles. It may be possible that

    307
    they can be, or are, covered in other ways. The right answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at present the intention is to restrict the testing to private cars.
    There are one or two other classes of vehicles which may have to be exempted. For example, there are vehicles temporarily imported into the country by tourists. There are also vehicles of special types, such as bulldozers. The subsection is one which makes the whole thing flexible.
    Subsection (3) enables me to make the testing compulsory for vehicles of such an age less than ten years as I may specify in the future. By this subsection, I am enabled to widen the scope. The other points contained in this Clause are technical points. Subsection (4) enables me to exempt vehicles which have been laid up and must go for a test before they can again be licensed. Subsection (5) makes the issue of the vehicle Excise licence dependent on the production of a current test certificate. This link with the Excise licence is desirable to ensure that a vehicle is submitted regularly for testing. Subsection (6) provides that the regulations made under this Clause, as in the case of those made under the first Clause, will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure and will have to be brought before the House.
    The Clause as a whole is widely drawn to enable the maximum flexibility to be exercised in its operation. It is intended to bring in the private motor car over ten years old, but the Clause is so drawn that, as we make progress with the scheme, we can make cars of a lesser age subject to the test, if we so desire. I am given full powers to examine classes of vehicles or vehicles not subject to the test and to deal with special cases such as vehicles which have been laid up and must come for a test before they can be licensed, and other special matters of that kind. The Clause does not meet one or two of the points brought forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but no doubt they will be raised in the form of Amendments.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I gather that if one wishes to make any general comment about the Clause, now is the opportunity to do so. I was interested to hear the Minister say that he had not made up his mind whether goods vehicles are to
    308
    be included in the test. The reason for omitting goods vehicles is, I think, because there already exists spot checking of goods vehicles to some extent. But it is not a great extent, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the question of the large number of trade vans over ten years old which are on the roads and the danger they may present. They would seem to be as great a danger as the private motor cars.
    Before he comes to a decision, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will review that aspect to see whether it may be desirable to include goods vehicles.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Clause includes goods vehicles. They are not barred, but I will consider carefully the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. David JonesI beg to move, in line 9, at the end to insert:
    "and those which are sold after the coming into operation of this section and were first registered as aforesaid not less than three years before that sale".
    With your consent, Sir Charles, it might be convenient if, with this Amendment. we discussed the other two Amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, namely, in the same line, at the end to insert:
    "and (on the occasion of a sale and for twelve months thereafter) those which are sold after the coming into operation of this section and were first registered as aforesaid not less than three years before that sale".
    and in line 16, after "years", to insert:
    "or for three years, as the case may be"
    The Minister has drawn the Clause fairly widely and seems to be making an effort to deal with most of the difficulties which arise by reason of faulty vehicles being on the roads. In my opinion, the first thing the Minister should have tackled is the trafficking which goes on in second-hand cars. That is the reason why a great number of defective second-hand vehicles find their way on to the roads.
    We consider that the 10-year age limit is too high. A vehicle which has been driven hard for ten years is usually in a parlous condition. Judging from the vehicles which one sees on the roads today, many are in a bad condition long before they are ten years old. I listened

    309
    to the argument advanced earlier by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). The hon. and gallant Member said that he had a car which was 18 years old and which was better than many modern cars.
    Captain Duncan: It is safer.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister has not included in this Clause a proviso that vehicles, when they are sold, must be examined, and that if the vehicle changes hands again a year or so later there should be a further examination before it is allowed on the road.
    We need only look at the daily Press to realise that there are a number of unscrupulous dealers who are prepared to take advantage of people with little experience of cars and to sell to them vehicles which are in a very bad condition.
    A large number of the defects which have been discovered at Hendon were probably unsuspected by the owners. I do not charge the owners with having wilfully driven a car with headlights which were out of focus, nor do I suggest that the majority of drivers drive a car which has not effective brakes. After all, their own lives are in peril. That being so, how much more difficult is it for the man procuring a second-hand car for the first time to be quite sure that that vehicle which he purchases from the dealer has efficient brakes, properly focused headlights and all those other things which, unless effective, are a danger to the unsuspecting pedestrian.
    6.30 p.m.
    For those reasons, special steps ought to be taken by this Clause to ensure that when a car changes hands it must at least have had a test and have been given a test certificate within three years, and that if that vehicle is sold a second time it should have a further test before the second sale takes place. If those precautions were taken, I believe that the number of accidents on the road would be minimised and that the number of people taking out cars which are defective in essential things would be reduced. If I may borrow a phrase used by the Minister in connection with another subject which we discussed not many weeks ago, he would, by accepting this Amendment, "put teeth" into the Clause.
    310
    The Minister has not been too forth-coming about the Amendments which have so far appeared on the Notice Paper. Nor was his predecessor, when we spent a considerable time in Committee trying to achieve the best we could get. There are no politics in this at all. We are all subjected to the dangers arising from the ever-increasing traffic on the highway. Those who, like myself, have more often than not to be pedestrians because we cannot be otherwise are probably subjected to a greater danger than are those sitting behind a lethal weapon which is travelling on the roads. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the principle here involved he will put teeth into this proviso which will at least be a substantial effort towards reducing the number of unsatisfactory vehicles on the roads.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am very anxious to put teeth into the whole of this Measure because, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) very rightly and fairly said, there are no politics in this matter. The whole House desires to make a contribution to road safety by the passing of this Bill. I therefore looked very carefully into these related Amendments, which, I think it fair to say, all really try to do the same sort of thing in general—to impose a certificate on the sale, and. in some cases, on the resale, of a vehicle. Perhaps I might deal with them in very general terms.
    First, I should say that at the moment we do not entirely lack powers to deal with this problem. If the purpose of the Amendments, as I am sure it is, is to see that unfit cars are not sold or resold, that purpose is already substantially met by the provisions of Section 8 of the 1934 Act which are proposed to be extended by Clause 6 of this Bill. That Section penalises the sale or supply of vehicles which do not comply with certain statutory requirements. We are not, therefore, without some powers in this matter against those who are deliberately trying to sell an unsafe or unsatisfactory article and those putting it on the road when it is a danger to other people.
    One big difficulty, as I think everyone will agree, is that the addition of this class of vehicle to the numbers to be tested would add enormously to the task. It is difficult at this stage to form any firm opinion as to how rapidly we shall be

    311
    able to deal with the vehicles which are over ten years old. If we add to that number the quite large numbers of cars which change hands after they are three years old it will probably mean deferring for a considerable period the coming into operation of the Clause and the whole operation of the scheme itself. I am very anxious to make a start as soon as we can. If we had to cater for all cars over ten years old plus an unknown number of cars which would have to be tested because they were changing hands after they were three years old it would inevitably delay the coming into operation of the whole scheme.
    There is another difficulty, and I think it is a fair one. If these Amendments—or some modification of them—were accepted it would enforce on the seller a duty to have and to produce a test certificate. That might well be misunderstood by the public. As has already been said, the test certificate would only say that the car was satisfactory as regards certain specified things such as steering, lights, brakes, tyres, and so on. It is certainly not a general guarantee that the car is in all degrees roadworthy and satisfactory—or, indeed, a good bargain. For example, it will have no relevance to the condition of the engine, to much of the condition of the bodywork and the like. The certificates might well be misunderstood and might, I think, do something to bring them into disrepute—a thing which I am sure we are anxious should not happen. We are anxious to have them regarded as being very fair and accurate for the limited purpose for which they are intended.
    I am advised that a difficulty also arises as to enforcement with reference to the actual day of sale in the case of vehicles bought under hire-purchase agreements. I am advised that there are also serious difficulties of enforcement arising from the need to identify a particular vehicle on the road as one which had been sold in circumstances which brought it within the requirements of the test. I quite accept the general principle that we ought to do all we can to make this Clause bite as hard as possible. I say again that there are certain powers—which will be improved by this Bill—available under the 1934 Act which meet the extreme case of the man who deliberately sells a defective vehicle.
    312
    I must also repeat that there are great difficulties of enforcement which might tend to some extent to bring the whole idea into disrepute. The suggestion put forward would undoubtedly increase the delay in bringing the scheme into operation by including for test a very large and unknown number of vehicles. Whilst I accept and, indeed, welcome the motives which have caused the hon. Gentleman to bring forward these Amendments, I think that for the reasons I have given I should advise the Committee not to accept them.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: I very much regret that the Minister has not been able to accept this Amendment. When the principle of compulsory testing was accepted in Standing Committee, and now at this present stage, we had to decide to which cars that principle should apply. It would obviously be desirable, if it were practicable, to test all cars at the same time. Everyone agreed that that was not possible and that only certain types or categories of cars could in the first place be subjected to compulsory testing.
    The proposal relating to cars over ten years old came from ourselves. We were trying to put forward a practical proposal. To keep the numbers down we said that this provision should apply to cars which are ten years old or more and cars which change hands after they are three years old. It seemed to us that there was particular force in applying the provision in the first place to those two categories only. The case for including cars ten years old and over is obvious. But there is a similarly strong case with regard to cars which change hands after they are three years old. If it were easier and the Minister would accept the suggestion, I would suggest four years.
    Human nature being what it is, we know that a person wants to sell his car when he is dissatisfied with it. He says, "It is about time I got a new car." That does not mean that the vehicle is seriously defective in any way. It means merely that its performance is not so good as it was, that perhaps the steering is loose, that the brakes are not as good as they were and that the traffic indicators are not working well. It is often an indication that the performance of the car is not what it ought to be. It often means that the car has reached a stage when the expense of keeping it in good repair

    313
    is becoming burdensome, and, therefore, the owner decides to sell it.
    We suggest that, when that happens, it would be a strong case for having the car tested for road safety. This is almost as important a category of car, from the point of view of road safety, as the category of car which is ten years old. The two things ought to be taken together.
    One objection of the Minister to this proposal is that it would add to the total number of cars which have got to be tested in the first place. We do not know how many cars there are. I do not think that the Minister knows how many ten-year-old cars there are on the roads. We do not know how many cars change hands after they are three years old. It is guess-work on anybody's part, and, therefore, it is impossible for the Minister to say that there will be too many cars for the first operation. He does not know how many there will be.
    Clearly, the fewer cars there are, the easier the operation will be. If we were to apply the scheme to cars twelve years old instead of ten years old, there would be fewer cars still. The number of cars which are ten years old and which change hands after they are three years old will be as many as any comprehensive system of testing stations throughout the country will be able to deal with reasonably well. Until the Minister can give us some figures to disprove that contention, he has not made out his case.
    What are the other arguments that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward? He says that there are already powers included in Clause 6 which make it illegal for anyone to sell a car the standard of fitness of which is below a certain level. But that is no protection at all. I wonder how many prosecutions took place last year under the 1934 Act? I am sure there were very few. We know from the Hendon tests that most of the cars tested are fairly good cars but that 75 per cent. of them have defective headlights and 50 per cent. have defective steering. The protection afforded by Clause 6, which makes it illegal to sell cars in a dangerous condition, does not bite on this proposition. We say that when a car is sold, it should undergo this general test of roadworthiness.
    314
    The right hon. Gentleman's last argument was that people will think that if a car has passed the road safety test at a testing station, the car will be in good condition in all respects, and that that would be misleading the public and the purchaser would think that the standard of the engine and everything else was high. That is assuming an extraordinary lack of intelligence on the part of the public.
    Such a certificate would mean nothing of the sort. Everybody will know that when a car changes hands a certificate will have to be issued from the road testing station saying—and it would say only this—that the car has been tested from the point of view of steering, brakes and lighting, and that in those respects only has it passed the test. That would not mean anything else. I do not think that anybody would assume that it meant the engine was in a perfect condition. The purpose and the effect of such a certificate would be quickly understood by the public. There is nothing in that argument.
    6.45 p.m.
    It is no use asking the Minister to think again in this matter. I am sure he has made up his mind. He is making a great mistake in not including among those cars which have to be tested in the first place the type of car which appears to us ought to be tested from the point of view of road safety, just as much as the car which is ten years old. We feel strongly about this matter. The Minister is missing a great opportunity to help to keep down road accidents, and when it comes to the right time we shall vote in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that I shall cause the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) to change his mind, but he asked me whether I had any estimate of the number of cars older than ten years which will be affected by this proposal. This figure can only be very approximate, but, as far as I am advised, private cars over ten years old which will fall to be tested will amount to more than 1½ million. If we include motor cycles and goods vehicles to be tested, the number will be about 2 million.
    The task is already fairly formidable. If we were to add some unspecified

    315
    million transactions, it would be a very formidable task indeed. I think it would be wise at present to adhere to the procedures that are laid down and try to make a good job of the cars over ten years old.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman not assuming that the number of cars that change hands is much higher than it probably is? I do not know what the figures are. I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that more than a million cars over three years old change hands every year.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Perhaps I may add some informaton. We talk rather glibly here about cars, but there are also commercial vehicles and motor cycles, so the total number of vehicles is much greater than merely the number of cars. I have always understood from trade circles that the number of sales of second-hand vehicles is about 1,800,000 per annum. Knowing, as we do, that there are 6 million vehicles on the roads, and assuming that they change hands about once every three years, that figure of 1,800,000 is not out of the way. One would expect there to be about 2 million sales a year.
    Taking out of account those which are less than three years old—
    Mr. Strauss: And over ten.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: —and over ten, one comes at once to a figure which would be somewhere well over I million. Therefore, this proposal is adding a very substantial figure to the 1½ million or 2 million which are to be tested every year. In that case, it would be impracticable to demand that another million vehicles should be added for testing purposes.
    Mr. Oliver: Most of us, I am sure, are in sympathy with the point of view expressed by the Minister, that this large number of cars coming to be tested would probably make the scheme unworkable. But if the Minister is in favour of the principle, is there anything to prevent him specifying an appointed day for the operation of this scheme when opportunity presents itself? That would show that the Minister is really concerned about the second-hand car market.
    316
    There is no question that if one wants to find a defective vehicle, the Warren Street kerbside market would be a very good place to find one. In the main, they are sold because they are defective. I am not suggesting that the defect is always in the brakes or the tyres. I know full well that there are other parts of a car which are defective and that cars are sold for that reason, but I cannot believe that the Minister can accept the penalty Clause as having any retarding influence on the sale of defective vehicles.
    It would, I am sure, be very interesting if the Committee could have some idea of how many prosecutions have taken place under this particular Section which he quotes. I venture to suggest there have been very few indeed. We want something positive. We want the Minister to do something to ensure that cars, when they do change hands, change hands in a safe condition.
    We all recognise that we cannot deal with the 1½ million or 2 million vehicles which change hands every year until the scheme is launched, but I would beg of him to show quite clearly that he is in sympathy with the intention of this Amendment by accepting it and passing it, perhaps with some deferring words, which would mean that on some appointed day this provision could come into operation.
    Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South): I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded, either now or at any future time, to accept the proposal contained in this Amendment. I myself think that the age of ten years is quite high as a limit to set. A good many cars get into quite bad mechanical condition before they are ten years old, and I should hope that, as soon as the initial rush has been absorbed, it would be possible gradually to lower the age from ten to a smaller number of years.
    The proposal which is put forward in the Amendment has the disadvantage that it will greatly slow down that process by diverting the testing facilities in a haphazard manner. Some cars may change hands many times, and quite frequently, and they would have to be tested each time they changed hands. Other cars, on the other hand, would remain in the same ownership for ten years, not being tested at all. I should think it was a pity, testing capacity being the limiting factor, that

    317
    it should be dissipated in a haphazard fashion rather than being concentrated upon the flat rate, universal testing of ageing vehicles which will gradually take all vehicles into its care. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this Amendment and use his testing resources to the best effect.
    Mr. Frank McLeavy: I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. What we are asking is that the Minister should at least take power, so that if and when the time arrives when it is possible to deal with this type of second-hand vehicle, he will be able to exercise that power, first of all in the interests of public safety, and, secondly, in order to prevent many decent people being swindled by those who sell cars under false pretences.
    After I had spoken on this matter in Committee, I had a letter from as far away as Glasgow, from a person who had been badly bitten in buying a motor car. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) may laugh, but it is not an isolated case; there are thousands of people who have purchased cars, honestly believing those cars to be in proper running order, and have found themselves in a very difficult position, having to meet a lot of expense, when they have tried to put them on the road. I know of one instance near where I reside; a chap bought a car over 12 months ago, in that same belief that he was buying a roadworthy vehicle, and he has not yet got it fit for the road.
    It is reasonable, both in the interests of public safety and for the protection of decent people from being rooked by those who are speculating in this type of broken-down car, that there should be
    this provision in the Bill. While I appreciate that, in the initial stages of the inspection and testing scheme, it would not be possible to meet this situation, surely, in three, four, five or six years' time, when the scheme is well under way and the Minister is advised by his Department that the testing stations could deal with the sort of second-hand vehicles to which he has referred, then if he had the power in the Bill he would be able to extend this further protection to the community.
    I ask him very sincerely to reconsider this matter. There are many people who are dealing in second-hand cars in the way I have described. I would ask the Minister at least to give some hope that the public will, in the future, be given some protection from that undesirable type of trader through the exercise by the Minister of the power which we now ask him to put into the Bill.
    Mr. Watkinson: I merely want to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. F. McLeavy) that I have carefully thought of that. As we make progress, I really think it will be fairer to continue the universal testing of cars, taking them at lesser ages as time goes on, thereby keeping the testing stations going on that basis, rather than bringing in this quite new consideration of testing cars on sale and resale. I think that, by that process, based on the figures I have given and those which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) from his expert knowledge of the industry has given, we really shall have as big a job as we can hope to tackle in the future.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 176. Noes 218.

    Division No. 197.]

    AYES

    [6.57 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Anderson, Frank

    Butler, Herbert (Haokrey, C.)

    Deer, G.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Balfour, A.

    Champion, A. J.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmweh)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Clunie, J.

    Dye, S.

    Benson, G.

    Coldriek, W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Beswiok, F.

    Colliok, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Blackburn, F.

    Cove, W G.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Finch, H. J.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon, H.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Gibson, C. W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mahon, Simon

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Malialieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mason, Roy

    Snow, J. W.

    Hannan, W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hastings, S.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Moody, A. S.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Holmes, Horace

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Mort, D. L.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Thornton, E.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Timmons, J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, A. E.

    Tomney, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Orbach, M.

    Viant, S. P.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Oswald, T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Paget, R. T.

    Weitzman, D.

    Janner, B.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    West, D. G.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Parker, J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wigg, George

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Paton, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Probert, A. R.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rankin, John

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Reeves, J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Logan, D. G.

    Reid, William

    Zilliacus, K.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McGhee, H. G.

    Ross, William

    Mr. Short and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Mcinnes, J.

    Royle, C.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr P. G.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Grimond, J.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Conant, Mal. Sir Roger

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfd)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hay, John

    Banks, Col. C.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Barber, Anthony

    Deedes, W. F.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Barter, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Body, R. F.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Fell, A.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Foster, John

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bryan, P.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

    Glover, D.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Gower, H. R.

    Johnson, Eric (Blaokley)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Channon, H.

    Green, A.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    320

    321

    Kaberry, D.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Keegan, D.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Kimball, M.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Kirk, P. M.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Page, R. G.

    Teeling, W.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Partridge, E.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    PlIkington, Capt. R. A.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Pott, H. P.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    McK ibbin, A. J.

    Prior-Palmer, Brlg. O. L.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Redmayne, M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wade, D. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Russell, R. S.

    Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maude, Angus

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Shepherd, William

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Speir, R. M.

    Mr. Godber and

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in line 11. after "passengers", to insert:
    "to hackney carriages licensed by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan Police District under the provisions of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869".
    Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain the position in respect of the vehicles referred to in the Amendment.
    Mr. Watkinson: I shall be glad to do so. The position is, I think, quite properly met. Under the proviso to subsection (2) of the new Clause, I shall have power to exempt by regulation any classes or descriptions of vehicles prescribed in the regulations, including the description of vehicles mentioned in the Amendment. I have, therefore, the power to exempt them.
    I shall, of course, be favourably inclined to exempt any vehicles which I consider are adequately covered in other ways. Taxis and some other classes of vehicles which are already subject to an annual examination of such a nature and carried out by such an authority that it can be accepted as at least as sufficient as the test which I am proposing will certainly come within the exemption category.
    322
    Under these provisions, taxis in many other places besides London may well be exempted. Indeed, it would be unfair to exempt London taxis alone. In short, I have the power to exempt these vehicles provided I am satisfied, as I should be in the case of taxicabs, that the annual examination which they undergo is at least as stringent as the one that I am proposing.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Will this arrangement apply to great provincial cities which have a similar process of examination as the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, certainly, it will. It will certainly apply to the great city of which my hon. Friend is a representative, provided that the examinations are of a similar nature.
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: In my youth I was often a witness of horse-coping deals, which were often marvels of ingenuity entailing reprehensible statements being made, the veracity of which was demonstrated

    323
    to be non-existent the moment that the transaction had been completed. Judging by what I have heard in the discussion on the new Clause, it would seem that although horse coping has almost disappeared, the sale of secondhand cars appears to have taken its place as an example of reprehensible ingenuity on the part of some members of the community.
    I wish to express my satisfaction that the penalty to be imposed is limited. My fear with regard to the whole Bill has been that the penalties now proposed are often likely to be so heavy as to scare the people who will have the duty of reaching the decision after which a penalty may be imposed. In this new Clause, in spite of any temptation which there may have been to impose high penalties, it seems to me that the penalty is so reasonable that there should be no difficulty about the persons who may have to reach the decisions being scared off making the right decisions because of the fear of the penalty that might afterwards have to be imposed.
    I can only hope that some of the other penalties in the Bill will be scaled down so as to bring them within the same feeling of certainty, because the great thing in these cases is to make the possible offender feel that conviction is certain If prosecution is undertaken. At the moment, a good many people escape their just deserts because those who have to reach decisions fear that the punishment afterwards imposed may be too heavy.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(DURATION OF DRIVING LICENCES AND FEES THEREFOR.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a driving licence granted after the Doming into operation of this section shall, unless previously revoked or surrendered, remain in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted, and the fee payable on the grant thereof shall be fifteen shillings.
    (2) Where a driving licence is granted on the surrender of another licence, and the licence surrendered was capable of remaining in force for three years, then if the applicant so requires the fee payable on the grant shall be five shillings and the licence shall not remain in force after the end of the period for which the licence surrendered could have remained in force.
    (3) In paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section thirty of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the issue of driving licences, in the place of licences lost or defaced, on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling) for the words "one shilling" there shall be substituted the words "two shillings and sixpence".
    (4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a provisional licence or to a licence granted to a person as resident outside the United Kingdom.
    (5) For the purpose of securing, as far as may be, that when this section has come into full operation the work of issuing driving licences will be evenly spread, the Minister may by regulations under section thirty of the Act of 1930 provide for dividing into three groups applications made by persons who have not previously held a driving licence capable of remaining in force for three years, but have previously held either a driving licence, other than a provisional licence, or a licence under the Motor Car Act, 1903; and there shall be excepted from the operation of subsection (1) of this section applications of the first of those groups made in the first or second year after the coming into operation of this section, and applications of the second of those groups made in the first year after the coming into operation thereof:
    Provided that the validity or duration of a driving licence shall not be affected by reason that under the foregoing provisions of this section the licence ought to have been granted so as to remain in force for a period other than that for which the licence was in fact granted.
    (6) In this section the expression "driving licence" means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part I of the Act of 1930.—[Mr. Molson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    It was an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) in Standing Committee which gave the Committee an opportunity of expressing its views on this subject. It was very strongly urged that there was really no reason for driving licences having a duration of only 12 months, and that it would be greatly to the convenience of the motoring public if driving licences were of longer duration. It was also argued and proved that, with the great increase in the number of driving licences, there is an increasing burden upon the local taxation offices, and that it would reduce the amount of work very much, or prevent it from increasing at the present rate, if driving licences had a duration of a longer period than 12 months.

    325
    The Government undertook, if that Amendment was withdrawn, to move an Amendment dealing with the matter on Report stage. I made it plain that in doing that it would be necessary to impose certain limitations if it was to result in a decrease in the labour of the taxation offices. As a result, this new Clause provides for certain restrictions. It may be suggested, for example, that an arrangement should be made to refund the unexpired portion of the licence fee where, as often is the case, it is not desired that the licence should run its full term, or that a person should have the option of annual or triennial licences. If we introduced complications of that kind, they would add greatly to the difficulties of administration.
    There is another thing which also became apparent when we began to study the matter. It was obvious that if a triennial system was suddenly introduced, it would result in a tremendous burden of work being thrown upon the offices every three years. For that reason, subsection (5) makes provision for transitional arrangements. This will enable the licensing authorities to arrange, under regulations made by the Minister, that, for example, persons whose surnames begin with the letters A to F will be entitled to the three-year licence in the first year of the new arrangement, whereas those whose names begin with the letters from G to L or M to Z will get annual licences. In that way, the new system will be introduced gradually. It is, in fact, a fulfilment of a promise I made in Standing Committee, and I therefore trust that it will be acceptable to this Committee.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Royle: While I welcome the new Clause very enthusiastically, I wish to add an extra reason why it should be introduced. It happens that people who take out licences year by year sometimes slip up and gain a couple of months as a result of taking out yearly licences, and it is quite possible for the holders of driving licences over the course of five years to save 5s. by "pinching" a couple of months year by year. It will certainly be the fact that under this new Clause that could not happen except every three years, and I think it is quite a sound argument in favour of the Clause.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I want to express the appreciation of hon. Members on this side of the Committee who pressed for this Amendment during the Committee stage. This is one of the few of the numerous commonsense proposals which we made which the Government have seen fit to accept, and for that we are grateful. I only hope that, having accepted this suggestion in the case of driving licences—that they should be issued for a three-year period instead of annually—the same principle will be applied to some other licences, dog licences and the like, which would also bring a benefit in a saving of expense in administration.
    It seems to us that the introduction of this system of a three-year period on the basis now proposed by the Government is a very sound way of doing it, and should prevent an accumulation of work in the taxation offices. We therefore welcome it.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause —(PROVISIONS AS TO DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS, ROUNDABOUTS AND STREET REFUGES.)
    (1) The highway authority for any road repairable by the inhabitants at large shall have power to construct and maintain works in the carriageway․

    (a) along any length of road for separating a part of the road which is to be used by traffic moving in one direction from a part of the road which is to be used (whether at all times or at particular times only) by traffic moving in the other;

    (b) at cross roads or other road junctions. for regulating the movement of traffic;

    (c) for providing places of refuge for the protection of foot passengers crossing the road.

    (2) The powers conferred by the last foregoing subsection shall include power to light any such works as aforesaid, to pave, grass or otherwise cover them or any part of them, to erect pillars, walls, rails, or other fences on, around or across them or any part of them and to plant on them trees, shrubs and other vegetation either for ornament or in the interests of safety.
    (3) The power conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section to construct any works shall include power to alter or remove them.
    (4) As respects any road in a borough or urban district, being a road for which the council of the borough or district are not the highway authority, and as respects any road in a rural district, the powers of a highway

    327
    authority under this section may be exercised with that authority's consent by the council of the borough or urban or rural district as the case may be.
    (5) The power of the Minister to make advances under section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909 (which relates, among other things, to grants for road improvements) shall include power to make advances to a highway authority, or to the council of a borough or urban district, in respect of any work, beyond ordinary repairs essential to placing a road in a proper state of repair, done in the exercise of the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section; and accordingly, in relation to any advances made by virtue of this subsection, the reference in subsection (4) of the said section eight to a highway authority shall be construed as including a reference to the council of a borough or urban district.
    (6) Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, and the Fourth Schedule to that Act (which provide a code regulating the relations between authorities carrying out alterations to road and statutory undertakers having apparatus in those roads) shall have effect as if the works mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section twenty-one of that Act included any such work as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection executed (whether or not for road purposes as defined in that Act) by or on behalf of any authority mentioned in that paragraph or a rural district council.
    (7) The following provisions:—
    in the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, in section thirty-nine the words "or places of refuge" and the words from "or for the purpose" to the end of the section;
    in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, in section fourteen the words "or may provide island platforms for pedestrians";
    in section fifty-five of the Act of 1930, the words from "erect" to "road, and";
    in subsection (2) of section fifty-seven of the Act of 1930, the words "places of refuge in roads, and",
    shall cease to have effect; and anything done before the corning into operation of this section, otherwise than in pursuance of powers conferred by the said section thirty-nine, fourteen or fifty-five, which could lawfully have been done under powers conferred by this section if it had then been in force shall be treated as if this section had been in force when it was done.
    (8) In the application of this section to Scotland, in subsection (1) for the words from "The highway authority" to "power", there shall be substituted the words "The Secretary of State or any county or town council shall have power, in respect of any road for the maintenance and repair of which he or any such council are responsible", and for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
    "(5) The power of the Secretary of State to make advances under section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall include power to make advances to the council of a county or of a
    328
    large burgh as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, in respect of any work, beyond ordinary repairs essential to placing a road in a proper state of repair, done in the exercise of the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section".—[Mr. Watkinson]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This is not the correction of an oversight, but rather something which, as the Bill was going through the House, it seemed wise to insert. Perhaps I may briefly give the Committee the background. We are now at the beginning of a very large road programme for this country, and, although no doubt it will not develop as quickly as some people would like, none the less I think many fair-minded people will be surprised in the next year or so as they see the buildup in road schemes that will follow from works which are now being started or soon will be started.
    The point is that all these schemes, or the majority of the important ones, will be for double-track highways, and here we are beginning to create in this country a new kind of idea which the experts call the central reservation; that is, the strip of land which runs down the centre of double-track highways. In making our plans for these new roads, and for example, in considering the Cromwell Road extension, which as I think all hon. Members know is a double-track route for the major part of its length, certain doubts have been brought to our attention by the legal experts as to who really owns these reservations and who, indeed, has proper powers over them.
    It is not a great point, but the purpose of this Clause is, frankly, to put beyond legal doubt the powers of the highway authorities to construct and alter certain road works which have in practice for long been regarded as essential features, but which recent legal advice has held to have no clear statutory sanction.
    This new Clause makes it clear that the central reservation—the strips of grass or concrete, sometimes planted with trees—can be dealt with in ways which are necessary. It deals, for example, with such matters as lighting and fencing. I regard the latter as a very important one from the road safety point of view. Fences on these central reservations would

    329
    prevent children from running across the road at dangerous points. It is much easier to fence central reservations—and sometimes it is the only way to fence a road—rather than have fences along each side of the road. It is these things which we are putting beyond doubt in this Clause. If there are any other points which hon. Members wish to raise, I shall be pleased to try to answer them, but I have explained the general purpose—the useful and necessary purpose—of this new Clause.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: I am glad to have the Minister's explanation, because when I read the new Clause it surprised me to see that this power was necessary. I wondered what the position was. However, with the explanation I am quite satisfield. The Minister says that we have now embarked upon a very large road programme. I would seriously challenge that statement. While there is some work being done at present—and we are very glad of that—the fact remains that the amount of money we are spending on road construction is very small indeed compared with that which is spent not only in the U.S.A. but on the Continent. We on this side certainly desire that programme to go ahead, and if the new Clause will in any way facilitate it so much the better.
    Mr. Royle: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what progress is being made with the beautification of the roads? Is better progress being made with it?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a relevant question, for the plans for beautifying these new roads will have to include plans for the treatment of the central reservations. It may interest the Committee to know that the island at the Gunnersbury end of the Cromwell Road extension, where there will be a fly-over, will be no less than two acres in extent; that is, the central reservation will be two acres in extent. That, of course, will have to be landscaped. I would take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Mr. Bowes-Lyon for kindly accepting the chairmanship of the new committee I have just set up, and which is charged with the most important task of seeing that as the new roads are built—
    330
    and they will be built—landscaping treatment is given to them.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(TRAFFIC SIGNS.)
    (1) In Part III of the Act of 1930 and in this Act the expression "traffic sign" shall mean any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying warnings, information. requirements or prohibitions of any description prescribed or authorised under subsection (2) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 to traffic on roads or any specified description of traffic, and any line or mark on a road for conveying such warnings, information, requirements or prohibitions.
    (2) In subsection (4) of the said section forty-eight (which requires a highway authority to secure the removal of unauthorised traffic signs and similar objects) for the words "The highway authority shall" there shall be substituted the words "The highway authority may", for the words from "any traffic sign" to "such a sign" there shall be substituted the words "any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for the guidance or direction of persons using roads", the proviso to the said subsection (4) shall cease to have effect, and in subsection (5) of that section after the word "object" there shall be inserted the words "or device".
    (3) References in any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act) to the erection or placing of traffic signs shall include references to the display thereof in any manner, whether or not involving fixing or placing.
    (4) For the purposes of subsection (2) of the said section forty-eight (which provides that traffic signs shall be of the prescribed size, colour and type except where a sign of another character is authorised) illuminations, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination shall be part of the type or character of a sign.
    (5) The power conferred by subsection (5) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 to give directions for the removal of a traffic sign shall include power to give directions for the placing of a traffic sign of any prescribed type or authorised character specified in the directions or for replacing a sign so specified by, or converting it into, a sign of another prescribed type or authorised character so specified.
    (6) In subsection (7) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 (which confers default powers) for the words "effect the removal" there shall be substituted the words "carry out the work required by the direction"; and any direction under subsection (5) or (6) of that section—

    (a) if relating to a road or bridge in England or Wales. shall be enforceable on the application of the Minister by mandamus;

    331

    (b) if relating to a road or bridge in Scotland, shall be enforceable by order of the Court of Session on an application by the Lord Advocate under section ninety-one of the Court of Session Act, 1868.—[Mr. Molson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause seeks to clarify and extend the Minister's powers under Sections 48 and 49 of the 1930 Act over the erection, display, illumination, etc., of traffic signs. It is a consequence of the representations made to the Government by the motoring authorities and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
    Subsection (1) of the new Clause is intended to remove certain doubts in the existing law. Section 48 (9) defines a traffic sign as including
    "… all signals, warning sign posts, direction posts, signs, or other devices for the guidance or direction of persons using roads."
    By Section 48 (1) the highway authority may
    "… cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area."
    Doubts have arisen whether this language is wide enough to embrace carriageway markings and hence whether it is possible to prescribe such markings in regulations. A further doubt arises whether a portable sign, such as that used by a school crossing patrol or at an airfield crossing, can be said to be "placed on or near" a road.
    The new Clause makes it clear that any object or device, whether fixed or portable, may be a traffic sign if prescribed or authorised as such by the Minister.
    The second effect of subsection (1) is to enable the Minister to authorise the precise meaning of any traffic sign.
    Subsection (2) also deals with a doubt which has arisen and restores what is believed to have been the earlier position by referring in this connection to objects and devices instead of to traffic signs.
    Subsection (3) ensures that reference in any enactment to the placing of an object or traffic sign shall apply equally to the display thereof in any manner, for example, the holding up of a portable sign. Subsection (4) will permit the Minister to prescribe or authorise the illumination of traffic signs either by
    332
    lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material. It is obviously very desirable that the Minister should be able to require the illumination of such signs as, for instance, halt signs.
    Subsection (5) extends the Minister's power to give directions for the removal of a traffic sign, to enable directions to be given for the placing of traffic signs of the prescribed type or authorised character, and subsection (6) provides that where a highway authority fails to comply with a direction requiring the removal of a traffic sign the Minister may himself effect removal and recover the cost.
    I hope that the Committee will feel that these are important matters of detail which are likely to lead to convenience, economy and safety upon the roads, and that the Committee will be willing to accept this new Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: We welcome this new Clause also in so far as it contributes in any way towards the clarity of the directions on the roads and thereby to road safety. I urge the Minister to continue to give serious attention to the uniformity of the signs on the roads. There is a multitude of different signs. Motorists and pedestrians are confused by them. The more uniform the signs are the more likely they are to be observed and the greater the contribution they will make to road safety and the free flow of traffic. I hope that, having taken more and clearer powers, the Minister will turn his attention to that matter.
    Mr. Molson: I would express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. We regard this as being a matter of very considerable importance for the convenience of motorists and the safety of the public. We frequently incur unpopularity among local authorities which are anxious to put up special signs of their own which they believe to be improvements on the signs we are prepared to authorise. I am glad to have from the hon. Gentleman and so from the Opposition Front Bench support for our policy in trying to ensure that there should be uniformity of signs throughout the country.
    Mr. George Isaacs: I also welcome the new Clause, but I would ask the Minister to take into consideration one detail, and that is the height of the traffic signs. Many of them are placed at an inconvenient height above the level of the roads. Many of the signs are 3 ft. above road level. I wonder if the Minister would give consideration to the height of signs above the road level, since subsection (4) of the new Clause refers to signs
    "… of the prescribed size, colour and type. …"
    It would be helpful if he would consider more uniformity in the height of signs above the roadway.
    Mr. Molson: I think that is provided for, but I certainly will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I would express my gratitude to the Government for this new Clause. There was not adequate time to discuss this matter fully in Standing Committee. This is a valuable new Clause, for it tidies up what was a rather ridiculous doubt as to what was or was not a lawful illuminated sign.
    Clause added to the Bill.

  Third Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR ORDERS DESIGNATING PARKING PLACES.)
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 31, line 7, at the end to insert

PART 1

  ORDERS MADE ON LOCAL AUTHORITY APPLICATION
  This is a purely procedural Amendment and relates to the Amendment in Clause 12, page 11, line 4, which affords the Minister powers, on his own initiative, to designate parking places.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).— [Mr. Watkinson.]
  Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, to leave out "6. Section" and insert:

PART II

  ORDERS MADE WITHOUT LOCAL AUTHORITY APPLICATION
  6. Before making an order by virtue of subsection (5) of section twelve of this Act the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality an advertisement stating and specifying the matters set out in heads (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and shall take such other steps as appear to the Minister reasonably practicable for the purpose of bringing specifically to the knowledge of persons likely to be specially affected. as the occupiers of land adjacent to the parking places, information as to those matters.
  7. Where the Minister has in pursuance of the last foregoing paragraph advertised a proposal to make an order, then after the period for objecting to the making of the order has expired the Minister shall refer the proposal, together with any objection duly made, to the Advisory Committee, and that Committee shall consider the proposal and any objections duly made thereto and report and advise the Minister thereon and the Minister shall consider their report and advice.
  8. After compliance with the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph the Minister may make an order, either as proposed or with such modifications as he thinks fit.

PART III

  PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES
  9. For the purposes of paragraph 3 or 7 of this Schedule the Minister may require the Advisory Committee to cause an inquiry to be held under section three of the London Traffic Act. 1924, or if the Advisory Committee do not hold an inquiry may himself do so; and section".
  This Amendment is also consequential upon the Amendment in Clause 12, page 11, line 4. Its purpose is to secure that I make a proper notification and advertisement of the proposals.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  New Clause.—(VARIATION OF MINIMUM AGE FOR DRIVING MOTOR CYCLES ON ROADS.)
  (1) The Minister may by regulations provide that section nine of the Act of 1930 (which imposes minimum ages for the driving of motor vehicles on roads) shall have effect in relation to motor cycles, or, if it is so prescribed by the regulations, in relation to motor cycles of any class or description so prescribed, as if for the minimum age for driving there were substituted such age (not being less than sixteen years) as may be so prescribed:
  Provided that a person shall not be prohibited by virtue of regulations under this section from driving motor cycles of any class or description if at any time before the coming into force of the regulations he has held a licence comprising that class or description of motor cycles (other than a provisional licence) or if at the time of the coming into force of the regulations he holds a provisional licence, and for the purposes of this proviso "licence" means a licence to drive granted under Part 1 of the Act of 1930.
  (2) In subsection (5) of the said section nine (which provides for treating a person as disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence if prohibited by reason of age from driving a motor vehicle of any class) after the word "class" there shall be inserted the words "or description".
  (3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The object of the Clause is to make it possible to vary the minimum age for the driving of motor cycles by regulations to be made by the Minister instead of having to pass an amending Act of Parliament. At present the minimum age for driving motor cycles is fixed at 16 by Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. As a result, if for any reason it is desired to vary that minimum age it is necessary to wait for a legislative opportunity. That may well be inconvenient. The Departmental Committee on Road Safety is now undertaking an inquiry by means of a Sub-committee into the appropriate minimum age for motor cyclists. That will undoubtedly take some time. It is unlikely, therefore, that effect could be given to any recommendations that the Departmental Committee might make if the opportunity of this Bill were not taken and if the Committee are to present its Report after the Bill had been placed on the Statute Book.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) moved an Amendment in the Standing Committee, on 20th December, to exclude a person under the age of 18 from driving a motor cycle of more than 250 c.c. I undertook that the Departmental Committee on Road Safety would set up a Committee to go into the matter and report upon the whole question of accidents to motor cyclists. The moment that the Committee began to look at this matter we realised that it was a good deal more complicated than we had at first supposed.
  336
  In the first place, despite the very widespread feeling that modern heavy, fast motor cycles are being ridden by persons who are really too young to do so, there is extremely little evidence to show that the youngest of the motor cyclists are in fact having the most accidents. Clearly, before a change is made in the law, it would be essential to justify it on the facts. However, there is a very widespread feeling of that kind, and we should certainly want to have power to deal with the matter if, after careful examination, the Committee on Road Safety comes to that conclusion.
  Further, it has been strongly represented that some of the light motor cycles could quite safely be ridden by these boys but that there should be a limit upon the size. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had in mind, but from the practical point of view of enforcement it is essential that such limit should be one which the police can readily detect, and it is not at all easy to know whether a particular motor cycle is more or less than a certain cubic capacity. Therefore, it is a matter which must be carefully considered from the point of view of enforcement, even if the case is made out that it is desirable that there should be a limit of that kind.
  Thirdly, it emerged that the size of the motor cycle—the cubic capacity of the cylinders—is not necessarily a criterion of the speed at which the motor cycle can travel. We were surprised and rather alarmed to learn that some quite light motor cycles can travel and are ridden at speeds up to 100 m.p.h. Obviously, we want to take that kind of thing carefully into account before we decide upon altering the law in this matter.
  The Road Safety Committee, by a considerable majority, represented through me to the Minister that it was most anxious that the opportunity of this Road Traffic Bill should not be lost. It is for that reason that I move the Second Reading of the new Clause. It gives the Minister power, by regulation, to alter the age, if and when he is satisfied, as a result of the investigations now being undertaken by the Road Safety Committee, that it is desirable to do so.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be added to the Bill.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: So far as I understand the new Clause, it empowers the Minister, by regulations, to raise the age at which one can drive a motor cycle—or to lower it. I do not think that anyone in the House would suggest that the age should be lowered below that of 16 at which it stands at present.
  Mr. Molson: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Under the Clause the age could not be lowered. We are taking power only to raise it.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the Departmental Committee on Road Safety is conducting an inquiry into the age limit for the drivers of motor cycles and I hope that this will be speeded up as much as possible. The road accidents which occur as a result of motor cycles being involved are numerous. Indeed, I believe that in 1954 there were 700 fatal accidents as a result of motor cycles being used, and no doubt the number is increasing.
  It seems disproportionate that no one can drive a motor car until he is 18 years of age, whereas the motor cycle, which, in my view, is a more dangerous lethal weapon, can be driven by younger people. What is more, those who drive motor cycles are of the type who take greater risks and cause confusion on the highways, so that many of them are a danger to the public. Again, whereas before a provisional licence for a motor car is obtained the applicant must have someone by his side who is a fully qualified driver, there is normally no one assisting the person learning to drive a motor cycle. So for those reasons there is a strong case to be made out for raising the minimum age for the driving of motor cycles.
  I welcome the power being taken by the Minister to put this into effect if recommended so to do by the Road Safety Committee. I repeat that I hope its inquiry will be regarded as a matter of urgency, and that before long the House will be informed of its recommendations.
  Mr. Graham Page: I want to express gratitude to the Minister for introducing this new Clause. At an earlier stage of the Bill I introduced a rather more specific Clause because, according to Metropolitan Police reports,
  338
  there has been a substantial increase in the number of accidents involving motor cyclists.
  I thought that this matter could be dealt with in a specific way, but the Minister has referred it to the Road Safety Committee which has found that it is not nearly as simple as I thought. The problems which arise when one investigates the accidents in which motor cyclists are involved are unexpected and unusual. Therefore, I thank the Minister for introducing this new Clause, which will give my right hon. Friend power to bring the recommendations of that Committee into effect as soon as it has reported.
  Mr. George Darling: I want to put what I think is a small but practical point to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose that the Departmental Committee on Road Safety suggests at some future date that the way to deal with this problem is to allow driving licences to be granted at the age of 16 but recommends that between the ages of 16 and 18 any applicant for a licence must pass a special and stricter test than would be given to anyone above the age of 18. Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent the Minister from accepting such a suggestion, or could it be suggested under this proposed Clause and the other parts of the Bill that might be affected?
  Mr. Molson: The answer is that under this Clause it is only possible to raise the age.
  Mr. Spencer Summers: One or two of the comments made in connection with this new Clause seemed to infer that it was designed primarily to give power to the Minister to give legal force to such recommendations as may emerge from the Departmental Committee on Road Safety. I hope that we shall not prejudge the verdict of that Committee or its findings. We do not know what they will be, and if, for want of evidence of greater accidents among the young riders of motor cycles, the Committee were disinclined to increase the age limit at which the licence is granted, I for one would still remain impressed with the view that an increase ought to be made.

  339
  I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that motor cycles, in terms of road accidents, are more dangerous than motor cars. Therefore, whatever the Road Safety Committee recommends, and whatever may be the statistics of accidents for young and old, I hope we shall keep to that point and leave to the consideration of the Committee any distinctions between small, not dangerous types of motor cycles and the bigger ones, which evidently is thought by the Minister to be relevant to this issue.
  I hope that we shall be completely free to consider the Statutory Instrument which, presumably, will follow from the powers now taken to deal with the recommendations of that Committee when they come forward.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I, too, welcome this new Clause, but two things should be remembered when motor cyclists are criticised. The first is that the proportion of motor cycle accidents to the total number of motor cyclists is substantially less than it was before the war, not more, as is often stated.
  Secondly, in reply to a recent Parliamentary Question, it was indicated that although, unfortunately, many motor cyclists succeed in eliminating themselves, the numbers of the general public who are killed by motor cyclists is very much smaller than the corresponding numbers killed by motor cars, even allowing for the different numbers of vehicles licensed.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(OFFENCES AGAINST S. 35 OF ACT OF 1930.)
  (1) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of section thirty-five of the Act of 1930 (which provides for compulsory third-party insurance) shall not be convicted if he proves that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan, that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment and that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as complied with the requirements of Part II of that Act.
  (2) In subsection (2) of the said section thirty-five the words from "and a person convicted" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
  (3) In section six of the Act of 1930 the proviso to subsection (1) (which empowers a court to limit a driving disqualification to the driving of a motor vehicle of the same class or description as the vehicle in which the offence was committed) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Watkinson]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This new Clause has been introduced in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave in the Committee upstairs, and it makes the following three distinct though connected changes in the law. It provides a new defence for a person charged with using a motor vehicle on a road whilst it is uninsured. It makes disqualification for the offence of so using a vehicle a matter for the discretion of the court instead of automatically following upon conviction. It also removes the power of the court to limit any disqualification to certain classes or descriptions of vehicles.
  Subsection (1) provides the new defence to which I have referred. To establish this defence the defendant will have to prove that the vehicle did not belong to him and had not been hired or lent to him, that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and that he neither knew, nor had reason to believe, that the vehicle was uninsured whilst he was driving.
  We had considerable discussions in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) took a prominent part in those discussions. There was a general debate arising from Amendments which he moved both to Sections 11 and 35 of the 1930 Act. I think that the purpose of my hon. Friend was to extend in both Sections the special reasons which entitle the courts to say that the defendant shall not be disqualified where, but for such reasons, disqualification must follow.
  I undertook to meet the feeling of the Committee so far as it related to insurance cases, but I said that I could not promise to alter the law in relation to dangerous driving. So the first point I want to make on this new Clause is that it is limited to the insurance aspect, as I said in my opening remarks, and it only provides a new defence to a person charged with using a motor vehicle on the road whilst it is uninsured.

  341
  I have tried to implement fully the undertaking which I gave to deal with the insurance side of the matter. I think it is a fair point because it may well be that, for example, an employee can drive a motor vehicle which is not insured, although that fact is completely outside his knowledge. The owner of the vehicle might have allowed the insurance to lapse. by design or accident, and it might be quite outside any reasonable requirement that the driver could or should have known that. We are trying to meet a practical point, and I hope that the House will feel that the new Clause does so.
  I do not want at this stage to repeat the arguments into which we went very fully in Standing Committee. I will merely say that in the case of someone driving an uninsured vehicle I have tried to meet my hon. Friend's point. In fairness to him, however, I must say that I think his original desire was to give a much wider power than I have given.
  Mr. Ede: I regard driving a vehicle which is not insured as the most antisocial of all the motoring offences. Anyone who has had long experience on a bench of magistrates must know of some very heart-rending cases of the consequences inflicted by uninsured motorists on pedestrians or other persons who have been involved in accidents.
  I also have knowledge of the kind of case to which reference has been made, in which an employee, possibly of a big firm, drives on the roads, having no reason to suspect that his employers have not complied with the law, and then, when an accident occurs and an investigation takes place, it is discovered that the vehicle is uninsured. I agree that in such circumstances it is revolting to one's sense of justice to impose a penalty which may include depriving the man of his means of livelihood for twelve months.
  I hope that the new Clause will be so linked with the original Act that the person who is responsible for the vehicle being on the roads while uninsured will still be liable to the penalties involved. I was hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that precautions had been taken to make sure that that was so. If that is not done, there might be a very serious case of the kind to which I referred. Having an uninsured vehicle on
  342
  the roads is so serious an offence that the House ought to be satisfied, before it exempts some persons from the penalties, that the person who really ought to be charged with the offence is still liable to the legal penalties.
  Mr. R. Bell: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting so amply the case made by many hon. Members as well as myself during the Committee stage. There is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that driving without an insurance policy can have very serious consequences for people who are injured. What the Amendment aims at achieving, and, I think, succeeds in achieving, is merely to remove from the administration of Section 35 of the principal Act some of the anomalies which had become notorious.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that all that the Clause does in the way of making a new defence is to give the defence defined in subsection (1) to the person who is charged with using a motor vehicle in this manner and is able to establish the various circumstances there set out. It does not provide any new defence or otherwise reduce in any way the criminal liability of the owner of the vehicle under Section 35.
  The second thing that the new Clause does is to restore to benches of magistrates a discretion which a certain judicial decision took away from them. Their power to refrain from disqualifying because they thought special circumstances existed ceased as a result of a judicial decision, and it is now given back to them. I am sure that nothing but benefit to the administration of justice will result from this provision.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has put in the counterweight of subsection (3), which takes away the power of a court to order a limited disqualification. I did not table an Amendment to delete subsection (3) because, like everyone else, I did not want to prolong the Report stage. However, it seems to be proceeding remarkably quickly, and I think I might well have tabled such an Amendment. If I say that I am sorry that the subsection has been inserted, perhaps the Minister will consider the point before the subsequent stages of the Bill in another place.

  343
  I know that there is a slight logical difficulty in justifying the power to disqualify from driving one kind of vehicle and not another. Yet if a lorry driver is convicted of driving his uninsured motor cycle, it is a pity that he should be disqualified from driving his employer's lorry, by which he earns his living. It is arguable that if he drives, uninsured, a lorry for which he is responsible in some way, it is perhaps a pity that, automatically and without any discretion in the court, he should be disqualified from going to work on a powerassisted bicycle, one of those little, rather noisy contraptions which are nevertheless mechanically-propelled vehicles.
  I should have thought that for reasons of that type, which do not arise frequently but nevertheless exist, it would have been desirable to leave that discretion with the court so that, when the circumstances seemed to justify such a course, the court could exercise it. I do not want to be ungrateful, because my right hon. Friend has met me very fully on the insurance point, but I hope that he will consider the matter before the later stages of the Bill to see whether he can make a further concession.
  I am sorry that the new Clause extends only to the insurance point. I spoke in Committee about the second conviction for dangerous driving. I feel, and I think most hon. Members feel, that the discretion should be with the court as the 1930 Act intended that it should be, and that the effect of the decisions in 1945 and 1946, which took the discretion away from the court, were unfortunate and have not contributed anything to the even administration of justice.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Royle: I have not the advantage of having been a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. I want wholeheartedly to support what was said by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) about subsection (3) of the new Clause. I am very much in agreement with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said about the importance of insurance. Those of us who have had experience on magistrates' benches know the difficulties and tragedies which have occurred in many cases through the absence of third party insurance.
  344
  I join with my right hon. Friend in asking that those who own vehicles shall in future be responsible for matters of this kind, instead of the people who may not know that a vehicle is not insured and who, by subsection (1), will have a defence. I hope the Government will not lose sight of that.
  I was tempted to put down an Amendment to delete subsection (3), but I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Minister to remove the subsection when the Bill goes to another place. The subsection makes it impossible for justices to exercise a form of leniency which is not only very desirable, but which has been found to be very valuable. A man does not necessarily belong to the criminal classes because he is driving a motor vehicle in a manner of which the law does not approve, or when, for example, the vehicle is not insured.
  Magistrates want to temper justice with mercy, but subsection (3) prevents that in this context. A man who earns his living by driving a heavy motor vehicle may go to work every morning on a light motor cycle. He may be convicted of an offence—perhaps dangerous driving—with that vehicle. On conviction, his licence is automatically suspended. At the moment the magistrates have power to limit that suspension to the type of vehicle he was using, but if the Clause goes through, with subsection (3), the magistrates will not have that power of limitation and will have to take away from that lorry driver the right to drive a heavy vehicle and will thereby deprive him of his living for the period of the disqualification.
  That power in the hands of justices is extremely valuable in tempering justice with mercy. Some weeks ago a bench with which I am associated dealt with a case which achieved nation-wide notoriety, or celebrity—there are different views about it. Two brothers were engaged in the café business. The elder brother owned a motor car. He ran out of orange juice and said to his younger brother, "Get in the car and go to the wholesalers and get a bottle of orange juice." The car was insured only for private purposes and not for the carriage of goods.
  Unfortunately, the younger brother left the car with its engine running. The police came on the scene and drew his

  345
  attention to the fact that the engine was running. He was asked for his driving licence, which was produced at the police station within 24 hours. It was found that he was carrying goods in a vehicle not insured for the carriage of goods. There was a dual prosecution. Leaving the car with the engine running cost him 10s., but in the case of the uninsured vehicle the magistrates appreciated the difficulty and imposed the very small fine of 20s.
  However, they were compelled to disqualify him for 12 months. The solicitor who had pleaded guilty on behalf of the defendants said that he could find no special reason to put to the magistrates to show why there should be no disqualification. But he appealed that there should be a limitation in regard to motor cars only to enable the defendant to go to work each day on his own motor cycle. The magistrates exercised their power with the result that something which was quite trivial was covered by the leniency of the magistrates.
  That power is being removed by the terms of subsection (3). To some degree, subsection (1) would cover the case which I have illustrated, but it may have been that that particular defendant did know that the car was not insured for the carriage of goods. It is not merely a question of the uninsured car, but of other offences such as dangerous or careless driving. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, in a veiled way, referred to a case which hit the headlines of the national Press not long ago.
  We know that case as Regina v. Cottrell. The case went before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Cottrell had been charged with dangerous driving. It was found that there could be no appeal for the removal of suspension for the type of vehicle which was then being driven, when a period of disqualification had been disposed at the trial. The only course for the magistrates at the original hearing was to limit disqualification for the particular type of vehicle, because it could not be done later when an appeal was made.
  That shows the desirability of retaining in the hands of the magistrates the power of limitation of disqualification. In this, I am largely representing the view of the Magistrates' Association and of justices'
  346
  clerks. This has proved to be very valuable practice. Without this power there is a likelihood that very severe hardship will be imposed on a defendant for a very trivial case. In spite of the fact that I have resisted the temptation to put down an Amendment to delete subsection (3), I appeal to the Minister to give an assurance that he will consider removing it when the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. Isaacs: I wish to support the appeals made to the Minister to delete this subsection, particularly having regard to the point of view of justices dealing with these cases. If a man is brought before a court, and has to be punished for an offence, it is very hard if he has to be punished a second time and his livelihood taken from him for a year.
  These things may seem all right when they are examined in an office where a Bill is being drafted, but those who sit on the bench and those who appear on behalf of defendants are able to make up their minds about those defendants. Sometimes they decide that the defendant is not a bad sort, but has done something foolish and he has to pay the penalty. To deprive him of earning his living for a year is very hard. I think that magistrates throughout the country may be trusted.
  The first two subsections of the Clause will be very useful and I am grateful for the opportunities they will present for avoiding injustice, but I appeal to the Minister to give justices of the peace some discretion in this matter. They are men and women appointed for their common sense, fairness and judgment, and they should be given that opportunity. If this subsection were taken out of the Bill in another place, I am quite sure that the cause of safety on the roads would not suffer in consequence.
  Mr. Watkinson: First, I wish to answer a point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The intention here in so far as it refers to insurance is to avoid exactly the point the right hon. Gentleman made—the gross unfairness which might fall on an employee through no knowledge or, indeed, culpability of his own—but it does not relieve his employer or the owner of the vehicle from his due responsibility. It merely relieves a man who unknowingly committed the offence.

  347
  I think that hon. Members have been interpreting this matter very widely. It would not be proper to give any assurance at this stage, but I will examine very carefully the points that they have made. They are certainly much wider than the question of insurance. On the question of driving while uninsured the point is that subsection (2) of this Clause repeals those parts of subsection (2) of Section 35 which make disqualification automatic except for special reasons. The effect of that repeal is that the courts under Section 6 of the 1930 Act will have the same discretion to disqualify for the offence of driving while uninsured as they now have under that Section in the case of other driving offences.
  In other words, I admit that the particular issue I undertook to cover is a narrow one, but the disqualification of driving in an insurance offence will now be a discretionary matter and any hardship which the court wishes to mitigate in any such case could be dealt with through the exercise of discretion in such a way as the court thought appropriate. So there is no need to retain the proviso in subsection (3). I believe that the undertaking I gave upon insurance has been fully met. I undertake to consider very carefully the wider points raised by hon. Members before the Bill is dealt with in another place.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bell: Is it not the case that although the court has gained in discretion inasmuch as it will now be able to disqualify or not to disqualify altogether, it has lost in discretion in that it must either disqualify completely in respect of all classes of vehicles or not at all? Would it not be desirable in some cases that someone should be taught a lesson and disqualified in respect of driving one class of vehicle?
  Mr. Watkinson: That is very fairly put. We dealt with the matter in Standing Committee. I am not trying to say that I will consider this question and then not do so, but the point I made in Committee was the example of a man being drunk in charge of a particular kind of vehicle of whom it may be said that it is a hardship if he is a lorry driver and has been convicted of being drunk in charge of a private car. Some people might say that it is very hard to take away his livelihood
  348
  because the two classes of vehicle are not the same, but I think there is a case for saying that a man who has been drunk in charge of one vehicle might be drunk in charge of other vehicles. That is a relevant question I must bear in mind. Provided that is understood, I undertake to look at what has been said on this question.
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be very certain that he has a good look at this matter, because it must not be assumed that the House is unanimous about it.
  Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(CONTROL OF DOGS ON ROADS.)
  (1) Any person who causes or permits a dog to be on any designated road without the dog being held on a lead shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
  (2) In this section the expression "designated road" means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.
  (3) An order under this section may provide that subsection (1) thereof shall apply subject to such limitations or exceptions as may be specified in the order.
  (4) An order under this section shall not be made except after consultation with the chief officer of police. and shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister, or in Scotland the Secretary of State; and subsections (3) to (8) of section two hundred and fifty of the Local Government Act, 1933, or in Scotland subsections (4) (5), (7; and (11) to (13) of section three hundred and one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, shall apply to orders under this section and the confirmation thereof as they apply to byelaws and the confirmation thereof.
  (5) In England or Wales a local authority may institute proceedings for any offence under this section relating to a road in their area.
  (6) In this section the expression "local authority" means the council of a county borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough, or in Scotland a county council or a town council.—[Mr. Molson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Molson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  We now come to the difficult question of dogs.
  Mr. Summers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask for

  349
  your guidance? Would it not avoid repetition if comments relating to the new Clause—Offences relating to dogs— may be made during discussion of this proposed new Clause, as it seems to have a very close bearing on the matter?
  Mr. Molson: I wonder whether it might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and whether it would be agreeable to you, if you would indicate in advance which new Clauses you are disposed to select? This is the kind of matter which might arise in connection with some of the other new Clauses and Amendments.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The new Clause which has been moved and the Amendment proposed to it will be called. The next two new Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings)— "Blood Tests in Fatal Accidents" and "Facilities for Chemical Test to be Provided"—are both out of order because they would involve a charge. The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)— "Maximum Speed of Goods Vehicles" will be called.
  The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)— "Lighting"—is out of order as it would involve a charge. The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby —"Licences for Persons under 18 years" —will fall. Anything to be said about the new Clause—"Offences Relating to Dogs"—in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) should be said on the Clause which we are now considering.
  The new Clause—"Driving under Influence of Drink"—in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby and the one in the name of the same hon. Member" Driving Offences "—have not been selected. I understand that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) does not wish to move his new Clause—"Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930"—and the next new Clause which will be called is that in the name of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss)—"Wages and Conditions of Employment of Persons Employed in Public Service Vehicles." The
  350
  new Clause in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) "Use of Vehicles on Footpaths and Bridle Ways "—I imagine is superseded by the new Clause in the name of the same right hon. Member—"Use of Vehicles on Footpaths and Bridle Ways"—which is starred.
  Mr. Ede: This is an effort to suggest alternatives, and I prefer the last named new Clause.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I thought.
  Then there is the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet)—"Amendment of s. 5 of Act of 1930"—and the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall—"Amendments as to Suspension of Revocation of A and B Licences" —I shall then call the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle)—"Offences under s. 12 of Act of 1930"—and the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham —" Amendment of s. 6 of Act of 1934". I propose to call the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell)—"Diesel Vehicles".
  After the new Clause—"Use of Vehicles on Footpaths and Bridle Ways", to which I have referred, there are the three Amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall: in Clause 2, page 4, line 23, to leave out subsection (3); in line 36 to leave out from "section" to "he"; and in line 38, to leave out from "section" to the second "the". They will be followed by the Government Amendment, in Clause 6. page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:
  "or in such a condition, as respects lighting equipment or reflectors or the maintenance thereof, that it is not capable of being used on a road during the hours of darkness without contravention of the requirements imposed by law as to obligatory lamps or reflectors".
  I believe that all the rest of the Amendments are Government Amendments except the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields, in Clause 18, page 16, line 3, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:
  (a) on summary conviction under the said section eleven the offender shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment.

  351
  I gather that that Amendment goes with the two following Amendments, in line 16, to leave out "nine" and to insert "twelve" and in line 29 to leave out paragraph (d) and to insert:
  (d) on summary conviction under the said section fifteen the offender shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months; and any imprisonment awarded on a conviction on indictment for an offence under that section may be for a term not exceeding two years.
  Mr. R. Bell: In page 3217, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is an Amendment in my name to leave out Clause 7, which, I gather, is not selected. You did not mention that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment is not selected.
  After that there is the Amendment in page 3220, in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) to Clause 18, in page 16, line 9, which falls, because of the Government Amendment at the bottom of the previous page; and the Amendments to it will also fall. The Amendments to Clause 18, page 16, lines 3, 16 and 29, in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields, will be called and the two Amendments at the top of page 3221, in the name of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford Holt), relating to Clause 24, page 19, lines 38 and 39. The Amendment to Clause 33, page 26, line 34, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), will be called as will the Amendment to the Sixth Schedule, page 38, line 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs). The others are all Government Amendments. All that I have said is subject to Mr. Speaker altering his mind, because all the Amendments have been selected by Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Molson: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure it will be for the general convenience of hon. Members to know that.
  General concern about the control of dogs in relation to road accidents has been shown throughout the consideration of the Bill and also during the consideration of the Measure during the previous Parliament. Amendments were moved which the Government were unable to accept, mainly on the grounds of un-
  352
  enforceability; or because it appeared that the liability which would arise from the wording of such Amendments would be so wide as to go beyond what hon. Members who had moved them intended.
  During the Committee stage there were long discussions on this matter, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made strong representations to the Government that some steps should be taken to ensure that more effective control over dogs was exercised. The number of road accidents which are, at all events in part, due to dogs is very great. My right hon. Friend the then Minister undertook that the question should be referred to the Road Safety Committee of which I am Chairman. He undertook that everything possible would be done to speed up the matter so that the Government could at this stage lay before the House the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
  A special Sub-committee which was set up to consider the matter found that the more it went into the question, the more difficult it became to make recommendations which were not open to strong criticism. It seemed to the Subcommittee that the suggestions advanced during the Committee proceedings by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) held out the best prospects of achieving the maximum advantages and incurring the minimum disadvantages. It was suggested that local authorities should be given discretion to make byelaws dealing with this matter.
  Conditions vary considerably in different parts of the country, and the actual places where dogs may reasonably be expected to be kept under control can be determined only by local authorities familiar with the neighbourhood and the way in which dog owners exercise their animals. The Sub-committee therefore made the recommendations contained in this new Clause which, as I say, are based on the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. This is an enabling provision to empower local authorities to make regulations.
  It enables local authorities, except county councils in England and Wales, after consultation with the chief officers of police, to make orders designating certain lengths of road within the areas for which they are responsible. Such

  353
  orders would be subject to confirmation by the Minister, or in Scotland by the Secretary of State. When such an order has been made the new Clause would make it an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £5 to cause or permit a dog to be on a road designated by the order unless it is held on a lead.
  Subsection (1) makes it an offence to cause or permit a dog to be on any designated road if such dog is not held on a lead. Subsection (2) defines the term "designated road" as a length of road specified under the order made under the Clause within the area of the local authority making the order. Subsection (3) provides that an order made under the Clause may apply, subject to such limitations as are contained in the order. For example, it may be thought desirable to apply the order only at certain specified times—for example, at times of the year when traffic on the designated road is exceedingly heavy—or to make certain exceptions from its operation.
  Mr. Summers rose—
  8.30
  Mr. Molson: No, I would rather get on and give the explanation of what the new Clause seeks to do and try to answer my hon. Friend's point later.
  The need for such exceptions may be illustrated by the obvious necessity not to prevent shepherds from using dogs to assist them in driving cattle or sheep along the road. That will be dealt with by an Amendment which is, I think, to be moved later. When devising this Clause we had that kind of difficulty in mind.
  Subsection (4) lays down the procedure to be adopted if a local authority wishes to make an order. Prior consultation with the chief officer of police is necessary, and thereafter before an order can come into operation it must be confirmed by the appropriate Minister. Orders made under this subsection are made subject to the normal procedure adopted for the making of byelaws under the Local Government Act, 1933, for England and Wales and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
  Briefly, and without dwelling on the minor differences in this particular
  354
  between English and Scottish local government structure, this procedure is that before application is made for confirmation of the byelaw the. local authority making it shall for a period of at least a month before such application is made give notice in a local newspaper of its intention to apply; and secondly, must make available copies of the byelaw for public inspection free of charge at the council offices.
  Subsection (5), which applies only to England and Wales, provides that
  "a local authority may institute proceedings for any offence under this section relating to a road in their area."
  Subsection (6) defines the local authorities which are empowered under the Clause to make an order; namely, in England and Wales:
  "the council of a county borough or county district, the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a metropolitan borough,"—
  and in Scotland—
  "a county council or a town council."
  We recognise that the Clause is open to some of the objections on the ground of unenforceability which we made when considering the new Clause entitled "Offences relating to dogs" which was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and which I think he has been optimistic enough to put on the Notice Paper again in unchanged form. I will be quite frank with the House and say that the more we have studied this whole question of trying to control dogs—and their owners—the more difficult we have found it to be satisfied that it will be possible to enforce fairly and equitably the kind of prudent restraint which I think is ordinarily shown by good and sensible dog owners.
  At the same time, in view of the very large number of accidents that are caused by dogs not being under proper control, and in view of the very strong representations that have been made to us from both sides of the House, we referred the matter to the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, as we had promised. It is in accordance with the spirit of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Transport that we have accepted the recommendations of the Road Safety Committee, and it is for that reason that I have moved this new Clause.
  Mr. Summers: Whilst one can respect the motives which evidently inspire those who support this proposed new Clause, I am bound to say that I think it is perfect nonsense. Whether it be the Government or the Road Safety Committee who drew up the Clause is not my concern. All I say is that I do not think that it will work, and those who drafted it cannot realise what it is designed to deal with.
  It is suggested that there shall be hours of the day and seasons of the year when these regulations shall apply. How does anybody imagine that the innumerable dogs which wander about are going to know whether it is the season of the year or the time of the day when these regulations shall apply? I am reminded of the lady who went to a shop to buy a bowl for her dog to drink from. It was recommended by the salesman because it had the word "dog" written on it. The Lady said, "I am afraid it is no use. My little dog cannot read, and my husband does not drink water".
  It might perhaps be fair that people living on a designated highway should be punished if their dogs are allowed to stray and cause accidents. But what is the position of the housewife whose child inadvertently leaves the door open, allowing the dog to go out? Is the housewife to be liable to a fine of £5 because of the inoffensive carclessness of the child?
  Mr. Percy Wells: It is better than people being killed.
  Mr. Summers: It is all very well for the hon. Member to refer to accidents which are brought about by dogs.
  As I have already said, I respect the motives of those who brought forward this new Clause, but it is unrealistic to imagine that it is fair for a dog owner, perhaps a housewife, whose child inadvertently leaves the door open or who fails to detect a hole in the fence so that the dog escapes and causes an accident, to be liable to a fine of £5.
  Mr. G. Darling: And rightly so.
  Mr. Summers: The hon. Gentleman says "Rightly so." He will, no doubt, have an opportunity to speak in support of this new Clause if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  356
  There will be scores of instances of dogs wandering about in the region of designated areas in circumstances in which it will be quite unreasonable to expect the owners to keep them on leads.
  The proposed new Clause says that it shall be an offence either to cause or to permit a dog to be on a designated highway without the dog being held on a lead. How far from that designated highway is it to be thought reasonable to expect all owners of dogs to keep them so firmly under lock and key that they cannot stray and make their owners liable to the penalty of this Clause?
  We all know that many accidents are caused by dogs, but I do not think this is a sensible method of trying to reduce the number of accidents which are caused in that way. If dogs are to be dealt with in this way, why not cats? As the traffic in this country increases and the dangers of accidents increase, the criticism of today against dogs will be directed against cats tomorrow. The designated areas will extend all over the country. I think that we are losing our sense of proportion. There may well be ways in which owners of dogs which cause accidents may be punished, as is intended in another new Clause, but it is quite another thing to say that the owner of every dog that is seen straying on a designated highway, from however far the dog may have come, is liable to prosecution and to a fine of £5.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: There is one further aspect which we must consider, namely, the effect of the proposed new Clause on existing local authority byelaws in regard to nuisances caused by dogs. Many local authorities already have byelaws under which it is an offence for any person to allow a dog to foul the pavement; the dog is expected to go into the road and commit the nuisance in the road, wherein it is not an offence. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to make that an offence if it occurs on the highway. It will be an offence also under the local authorities' byelaws if the nuisance occurs on the pavement. Moreover, the number of trees in any locality has some distinct bearing upon this problem.
  The problem is not quite as easy of solution as has been suggested. I agree that something ought to be done to reduce the number of accidents caused

  357
  by dogs running on certain highways without any control whatever. I think that the better way to proceed is by designating certain areas where there should be a complete and absolute prohibition on dogs. There is no justification for permitting dogs to be allowed to live in areas where they might create a danger of accidents on certain highways. There are, of course, other highways where the traffic is not so heavy and the problem is not so acute.
  The Committee considering this matter ought to consider the imposition of a complete prohibition in certain areas. After all, I suppose one must have a certain amount of sympathy with the dog itself. As for the local authorities, the Parliamentary Secretary has said they would be aware of people's habits in exercising their dogs in any particular locality. There, I think, he is placing too big a responsibility on local authorities; they know many things, but I doubt whether they know the habits and customs of all breeds and kinds of dogs, and their owners, the times they go out and what they do.
  Mr. Ede: Do they not?
  Mr. Sparks: Our inquiry should be carried a little further than the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated. If he is to place the responsibility upon local authorities now for carrying out this function in regard to highways, then we ought to know what reaction that will have upon existing local authority byelaws. As I have said, they now ban the pavement to dogs, and they are to ban the roads as well. It seems to me that the only answer lies in complete prohibition in certain designated areas. Some case can be made for that. Otherwise, I cannot see how this provision will be quite as workable a proposition as the Parliamentary Secretary seems to think it is likely to be.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bell: We must recognise the difficulty and seriousness of this subject. The trouble is that it is both funny and serious. The Government undoubtedly face an extremely difficult problem in devising a provision which makes sense and will work.
  I was shocked when I discovered how high a proportion of road accidents
  358
  was caused by dogs. When we think of the public indignation which, quite rightly, exists about accidents caused by drunkenness among drivers and compare the number of accidents known to be due to that cause with the immensely larger number known to have been caused by dogs, it is astonishing, and an interesting comment upon the social habits of the British, that no such indignation exists against the owners of dogs which cause accidents on the road. Although the number varies in different areas, it is ten or twenty times as great.
  The difficulty is that whereas most of the accidents caused by dogs are in built up areas, nearly all the serious and fatal accidents caused by dogs occur on country roads and usually in relation to motor cyclists. I cannot give exact figures but about seven-tenths of all fatal accidents caused by dogs are to motor cyclists and occur largely on country roads. That is the great difficulty facing us in dealing with this problem. It is a defect which also diminishes the value of the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—"Offences relating to dogs"—which, otherwise, I prefer to the Government's new Clause.
  However difficult the matter and whatever ridicule one lays oneself open to, something must be done about this problem. We should make a try. I am not happy about the Government's new Clause. I am disposed to accept it as at least some progress, but I see the difficulty about how people are to know what is a designated road. [An HON. MEMBER: "How will the dogs know?"] It does not matter about the dogs; it is their owners we are after.
  The Clause provides for publication in a local newspaper, but that will occur only once and the byelaw will go on for ever. Knowing, as one does, how byelaws against the fouling of footpaths and for keeping dogs on leads are common and extensive, one knows that they are almost entirely dead letters and almost entirely unenforced.
  Mr. Ede: It is impossible to do so.
  Mr. Bell: Therefore, I am a little sceptical about this apparatus of designated streets in relation to dogs. We would have to paint a green line or something similar along the pavement if we

  359
  want people to know that a road is designated. It would become somewhat ridiculous.
  I am attracted still by the basic approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to attach responsibility—criminal in the case of my hon. Friend's proposal; it might well be civil—to the owner of a dog which causes an accident. Of course, that would not work if the dog was not caught but, equally, neither would any other provision. Unless the dog is caught, no one know whose it is.
  I remember that when the House was dealing with a Bill concerning dogs and the worrying of sheep, many people said it would never be of value because its provisions could only be enforced against owners of dogs which were caught and that the dogs were never caught. That Measure has now been in force for three or four years and hon. Members on both sides will confirm that it has been most useful and many prosecutions have taken place under it. In fact, if an accident is caused by a dog, the dog is not infrequently caught. In such a case, one could quite properly proceed criminally against the owner.
  What right have people to allow their dogs to wander untended in the streets in present-day conditions or untended, for that matter, on or near main roads in the country? People who keep dogs should take them out under proper supervision; they should not turn them out of doors to roam about all day and let what will happen. Far too many people are killed and injured every day as a result of that happening for us to take this matter in a light-hearted way.
  Nevertheless, I think that some progress should be made. I would only say about the new Clause that I am not happy about it. I hope that, before the Bill goes to another place, my right hon. Friend will see whether he cannot adopt the principle of my hon. Friend's new Clause, without its limitation to built-up areas, which, I think, destroys much of its value, and see whether, somehow or other, it cannot be shaped into a practicable form so that we may make some progress in this matter.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that everybody in the House, whatever may be the merits of the new Clause, must agree that this problem is a serious one which ought
  360
  to be tackled somehow. I do not know whether it is fully appreciated how many accidents are caused by dogs running loose on the roads, and I should like to give the House some figures which I have been studying while the debate has proceeded.
  One can only give useful figures by comparing the number of accidents caused by dogs with the number of accidents caused by other factors. Let us take some of the common factors in causing accidents, and these figures relate to 1954. Failing to afford free passage to pedestrians at pedestrian crossing places caused 1,970 accidents; turning round in the road negligently, 1,054; reversing negligently, 1,839; dazzled by the lights of another vehicle, 1,796; under the influence of drink or drugs, 826. The number of accidents caused by dogs being on a carriageway is much greater than any of these factors. The figure is 2,626. Everyone who motors nowadays must have had experience of the enormous number of near-accidents which take place, when accidents are only avoided by great skill or luck, when a dog suddenly runs across the road.
  Mr. Page: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the figure of 2,626 which he has quoted relates only to those accidents in which people have been killed or injured? There is a very large number of other accidents in which dogs are involved, but in these 2,626 cases people were actually killed or injured.
  Mr. Strauss: Certainly; I was making a comparison, and I was saying that three times more people are killed or injured because of dogs running across the road than by motorists who were drunk or under the influence of drugs when driving a car.
  Therefore, I think that any Government introducing a Bill which is designed to reduce the number of accidents on the roads must do something about this, or try to do something about it. I agree straight away that any Minister of Transport who tries to do anything about this problem faces a very difficult task indeed. It is exceedingly, and any proposal which he puts forward may be ineffective and is certain to be ridiculed. All he can do is to say, "Well, let us try to do something." This is a proposal, which I personally think is the best proposal, which

  361
  should be tried as an experiment. It may work or it may not, but if it does not work we shall have to try something else. I do not see any better way of dealing with it than this way, and I will give my reasons.
  What are the alternatives? One is that put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), which makes it an offence on the owner's part if a dog is responsible for an accident. I do not see that that would be effective. What would happen? If there is an accident because a dog suddenly crosses the road, we take the owner of the dog into court and tell him that he is responsible for allowing a dog to run across the road. What would be his reply? It would be that the dog had never done it before. The owner would say that he could not tell that there would be a cat on the other side of the road, or a dog friend or a dog enemy, that would attract his dog suddenly to cross the road. Of course, there would be no conviction, or, if there was a conviction, it would be only a nominal one.
  Surely, the right way to tackle this is, somehow or other, to try to prevent dogs being on roads carrying heavy traffic, to prevent them being allowed to walk on such roads at all except under control. That seems to me the only sensible way of doing it, to say that in certain streets, perhaps certain areas, dogs must be on the leash. It really is not such a terrible hardship to have to keep a dog on a leash in busy streets. Everyone who has a puppy always takes his puppy out on a leash in busy places or in any place where there may be danger to the puppy or to anyone. Therefore, it is not, surely unreasonable to say that certain roads are so dangerous that there dogs must be kept on leashes? By doing that we may save many hundreds of lives a year.
  It must be left to local authorities to take the initiative in the matter and to designate those roads which they regard as dangerous in their areas. It may be that local authorities will be slow to act in the matter because they may not want to incur unpopularity by preventing people from exercising their dogs unleashed, but I hope that many of them will have a sufficient sense of responsibility to pass byelaws insisting that dogs shall be kept leashed in busy streets. They can ask their people to co-operate
  362
  with them, and they can see what happens. Perhaps, they may not be successful, but I do not see why.
  Of course, people can ridicule the idea. They may say that, despite byelaws, a dog may run out of a house, of which the door has inadvertently been left open, and run into the street and be the cause of an accident. None of these schemes can be 100 per cent. perfect, but it does not follow that they cannot achieve beneficial results. Of course, there can be circumstances in which an unleashed dog may cause an accident, but its owner may have a sufficient excuse for not being in control of the dog at the time, and no prosecution would take place.
  A prohibition on the permitting of dogs to run about uncontrolled in busy places can be reinforced by propaganda explaining to the public the need for the byelaws, and that propaganda would have an effect on people's consciences, so that they would desire to co-operate with the local authority in seeing that dogs were kept under control, at least in designated streets.
  At least, the new Clause will mean that a very great number of dogs on designated roads will be kept leashed on those roads, perhaps 90 per cent. and, maybe, 90 per cent. fewer accidents will occur than would have occurred but for the new Clause. One hon. Member has said today that byelaws against dogs fouling pavements have been ineffective. Of course, those byelaws are not 100 per cent. effective, but I am certain that they have some good effect. In Kensington, they have had a substantial effect in making dog owners much more careful. The proposal of the new Clause is easier to enforce. The offence is easier to check, because if a person takes out a dog unleashed on a designated road he is liable to be summoned.
  Upon all these road safety matters we have expressed personal views, and they are non-party matters, and, personally, I fully support the Government in the proposal they are making. I understand their difficulty, and I realise that their proposal may not be a success and may be unpopular, but it appears to me the most effective way of attempting to deal with this very serious problem. I know of no better way, and I give them my wholehearted support. I hope many local authorities will pass the requisite byelaws

  363
  —in agreement with the chiefs of police, though that in some cases may be difficult to obtain—to see whether the high rate of casualties in accidents caused by dogs wandering about the roads can be materially reduced by this proposal of the Ministry.
  Mr. Page: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) for drawing out the seriousness of this problem. I am grateful to the Minister, too, for the new Clause, which is the result of a new Clause I introduced in Standing Committee and of the very interesting and thorough discussion which this subject received upstairs.
  The figure quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, of 2,626 accidents caused by dogs in 1954, in each of which someone was killed or injured, went up in 1955 to 2,848. It has been estimated that as many as 75,000 dogs a year are either killed on the roads, or so badly maimed that they have to be put to death—that is, about one-fortieth of the dog population. Therefore, those who are animal lovers can see the tragedies that occur to animals on the roads and those who have in mind the interests of human beings can see the seriousness of the problem when it is realised that 3,000 accidents are caused every year by dogs and that human beings are either killed or injured as a result.
  9.0 p.m.
  In a great proportion of the London parks a byelaw requiring that one must have a dog on a lead is severely enforced. I know, because one of the parks is directly opposite my house. If I take a dog into the park, and it is off the lead, I am immediately called to order by the park-keeper for doing so. It is amazing that we have this byelaw for the protection of plants in parks and we find some difficulty in enforcing a similar byelaw for the protection of life on the roads.
  In the Metropolitan area alone, 19,000 stray dogs are collected every year by the police. The police have no difficulty in taking up these dogs, and 6,000 of them are claimed by their owners from the police station. Therefore, a third of the owners of stray dogs are traced by the police themselves. The remainder of the dogs go to Battersea Dogs' Home or some
  364
  other home where more of the owners claim them. I cannot give the figure for the proportion in that case, but from these figures it will be seen that it is not difficult to trace the owner of a stray dog. I do not think that it would be difficult to enforce a byelaw of this sort. If a dog strays off the lead on a road designated by the local authority it should not be difficult for the police to take action.
  I cannot help feeling that a proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper in my name, dealing with offences relating to dogs, is better than this Clause. In that Clause I endeavour to impose a penalty on those who allow their dogs to stray so as to be a danger or obstruction to traffic on a bus route in a built-up area. People would know where they had to keep their dogs on a lead in that case, but I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the present Clause. I support it as going some way towards meeting the very serious problem which the dog presents on the road.
  Mr. Champion: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made a very powerful case for doing something about this problem, though not necessarily in this way, when we discussed the matter in Standing Committee. He received very strong support from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. West (Mr. C. Pannell), who reminded us that he had campaigned long, and he hoped that eventually it would be with success. for something to be done about the danger caused by dogs straying on the roads.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West is not here tonight to welcome this new Clause, so I am doing it on his behalf. I understand that my hon. Friend is in America, where I hope they appreciate to the full the flavour and humour of the remarks which he makes from time to time. I remember that in commenting on the matter with which this new Clause is concerned he once used the phrase that the dog was the sacred cow of the British way of life.
  Certain it is that this straying of dogs on the roads is a matter which it is right that we should tackle, and perhaps tackle in this way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) who said that this Clause was being ridiculed, as was

  365
  the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953. In fact that Act has had a measure of success, though not a complete success. The week before last the Minister of Agriculture told me that he was not wholly satisfied with the operation of that Act but nevertheless it was working fairly well. It so happened that last week I went to my local court. There I found that two dog owners were being prosecuted for permitting dogs to trespass after livestock. They would not have been prosecuted had it not been for the fact of that Act being placed upon the Statute Book. It brought home to dog owners the seriousness of the offence.
  When I drive a car there are three classes of road user of whom I am much afraid. They are the wobbly cyclist, the straying sheep, particularly in Wales, and the dog. I am very much afraid of those three road users.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: And other drivers.
  Mr. Champion: Perhaps I may add to that interjection, that my wife occasionally suggests that I am not too good myself.
  We ought to do everything in our power to encourage local authorities to use the powers which the Minister now proposes to give them. In addition, I hope that the road safety committees will themselves press the local authorities with which they are associated to use these powers to designate roads in order to try to reduce the number of accidents on the roads caused by dogs.
  Mr. Frederick Malley: This proposal seems to me to be merely shunting a difficult problem on to the local authorities. I was much impressed by the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and of the hon. Members for Crosby (Mr. Page) and Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell). This problem will not be solved by the mere passing of this Measure, which gives the local authorities the delicate and difficult job of designating areas and then puts the onus on dog owners to keep their dogs on leads. In fact, many dog owners who do not have their dogs on leads have them much more under control than others who have their dogs on leads.
  This proposal does not solve the problem, and I ask the Minister to consider
  366
  the form of words. We want to do something to mitigate the danger of dogs on the roads, but I ask the Minister not to take the simple way out of merely saying that a dog must be on a lead. I prefer the form of words indicated by the hon. Member for Crosby, which specify some point of danger or obstruction to traffic. Alternatively, the word "control" should be incorporated in the Bill.
  It seems to me that dog owners who take the trouble to train their dogs, and keep them effectively under control, should have that point recognised. A constable who is looking for a few easy prosecutions can charge a dog owner with a technical offence who has his dog at heel, because it can be said that the dog is not on a lead, although he is completely under control, whereas the person who should be charged is the owner whose dog is on the road and causing danger.
  Therefore, this new Clause seems to me to he unsatisfactory. When the Minister replies to the debate will he tell me whether the phrase "designated road" includes the pavements on each side of it? I suppose it is a point I should know. If it does not include the pavements, the difficulty may arise which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Acton, that if a dog wants to respond to the call of nature its owner can be charged with committing an offence under this Measure or one under the byelaws of the local authority. From my experience, anyone who can time the inclinations of a dog in these matters in relation to designated streets has his dog under such control that the use of a lead is completely superfluous.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I had intended to say almost precisely what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has said.
  I want to make a very strong plea to the Minister about the word "lead". Either the Canine Defence League or the R.S.P.C.A. has been campaigning for a considerable time, trying to teach people how to control dogs without having them on leads, and considerable success has been achieved. It would be very sad if the day came when, by law, people were not permitted to exercise control over their dogs in a way in which it can well be done if they know how to do it. I have done it all my life. I know quite well that my dog is under better control

  367
  when I have not got him on a lead. Any dog on a lead is a sitting target for another dog. A first-class way to start a row between dogs is to have one's dog on a lead. If one's dog is under proper control, walking at heel, there will probably not be a row if another dog is encountered.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to delete "lead" from the Clause and insert "under proper control".
  Mr. Ede: We are all anxious to limit the number of accidents on the road. I do not like the new Clause tabled by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) because in that case the accident appears to occur first and then the dog gets into trouble. I prefer the Minister's Clause, although I believe it will be completely unworkable. [Laughter.] That is not so humorous as it might sound. Subsection (5) gives the secret away.
  The Clause will be workable only if the police undertake its enforcement. I gather from the subsection, after having some experience of negotiating byelaws and so on, that the police have asked to be relieved of the responsibility for enforcement. The police will be on the highly trafficked roads, and if they see such a dog they ought to treat it as they do stray dogs, for which they have the responsibility to which the hon. Member for Crosby referred.
  The responsibility is in many cases put on county district councils. Small urban district councils and rural district councils in areas in which there are a number of villages with narrow, highly trafficked streets will not be able to afford to have on the roads servants looking for such dogs. If it is to be left to the local authorities, the provision will be unenforceable and unenforced.
  I hope that the Minister will consult the Home Secretary. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is sitting beside him, and therefore, he can easily make an arrangement for an interview at very short notice. Perhaps he can bring some influence to bear on the police authorities so that if local authorities make byelaws—they have to be made after consultation with the chief constables of the areas concerned—they will undertake a substantial share of the enforcement.
  368
  9.15 p.m.
  I share the feelings of chief constables who do not want fresh duties put on the police who have to control road traffic as part of their duty. The presence of dogs on the roads makes that task more difficult than it would otherwise be. There are not merely cases where an accident occurs. I know a lady who had had a leg amputated when a dog ran across the road and the driver of the car pulled up sharply and the lady was thrown from her seat. That sort of thing frequently happens through dogs being on the road, and there are no statistics about it.
  Mr. R. Bell: The number of accidents in the published statistics which are described as due to dogs immensely exceeds the number in which death or injury resulted.
  Mr. Ede: I am not trying to minimise the problem, but to point out the very serious inconvenience caused to people and the injuries which are sometimes not reported. If someone hits his head on a partition in a car, he does not run along to the police station to report it.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) has said about the importance of this matter. I am pleading with the Minister to get the police interested in the matter and to persuade them to accept a large share of the responsibility for securing the enforcement of these byelaws, wherever they are made. Without that, I am certain that, although we pass a law, it will not be effective. With police help and support it can be made effective. Subsection (5) is an indication that up to the present the police have expressed the decided view that they will keep out of it.
  Mr. Granville West: The tenor of the debate has indicated that all who have participated in it agree that the Clause will be completely unworkable. Hon. Members have been talking about the menace caused by animals trespassing on the road. Apart from the Minister, I have heard no one argue in favour of the Clause that it would be effective for the purpose for which it is designed. If that is the case, and if there is a problem of straying animals on the road, why is not the Minister sufficiently courageous to deal with that problem?

  369
  Why should only dogs be given a bad name? There are other animals which stray and which cause damage and injury. If any animal causes injury and damage, then the owner of that animal should be punished for it. I see no reason why a penalty should be restricted to one particular type of animal. All animals which are allowed to stray on the public highway and cause damage should come within the scope of the Bill.
  Sir Robert Boothby: What animals has my hon. Friend in mind?
  Mr. R. Bell: What my hon. Friend has in mind is the sheep which came down and ate the cabbages on the allotments in Pontypool three years ago.
  Mr. West: They ate them three years ago and they are eating them today. They are still trespassing and causing considerable damage in the area from which I come. The Minister should tackle the problem of straying sheep.
  There are other parts of the country where this problem of straying animals occurs. In the New Forest and in towns around the New Forest straying ponies cause considerable damage, and there are notices on the roadsides warning motorists of the danger of straying animals. The problem of such damage is one which the Minister should attempt to tackle.
  What is the Minister doing in this new Clause? Whom does he propose to catch? Is it the owner? In my respectful submission, the owner is not the person who will be caught. If a dog is trespassing on land and chasing a chicken and the owner of the chicken drives the dog off the land on to a designated roadway, he in fact has caused the dog to be on the roadway and he is the person who is to be convicted under the Clause. That is an utter and complete absurdity.
  If it is the owner whom it is intended to catch by the new Clause, why does not the Minister say that it is the owner? I suggest, as all other hon. Members who have spoken have suggested, that the new Clause has not been thought out, that it is completely unworkable and that the Minister should withdraw it and have second thoughts about it.
  Mr. Molson: As a matter of courtesy to the House, I ask leave to reply very briefly to what has been said. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) has surely demonstrated to the whole House how impossible it is to satisfy some people. He asks that the Minister should have the courage to deal with all cases of animals upon the highway. We have done what we can about animals in the New Forest. We have had a conference there and it has been quite impossible to solve the problem of the wild animals which come on to the roads there.
  We have confined ourselves in the new Clause to dealing with the special problem of dogs. As has been said, about 75,000 dogs are involved in road accidents every year. One-seventh of all the road accidents that take place are, to a greater or lesser extent, caused by dogs. I should like to express my appreciation of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who has said that he feels that in view of the rate of accidents of that kind no Minister of Transport introducing a Road Traffic Bill to try to reduce the number of accidents could fail to include a Clause which attempted to deal with this cause of such a very large proportion of accidents.
  The speeches during the debate have been of most diverse kinds, but perhaps about half of them came down in favour of the Clause and about half were against the Clause. Those hon. Members who were against the Clause were usually against it on the ground that they feared that it would be ineffective. They were not usually able to put forward any suggestion of what other steps could be taken that would be more effective.
  Mr. Sparks: Prohibition.
  Mr. Molson: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) preferred his own Clause, which attaches criminal liability to the owner of a dog where actual damage or injury results from its action. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, the effect of that would be entirely capricious. It would mean that the penalty would fall upon the owner of a dog who probably had had the misfortune to have his dog killed or injured, and a very large number of people who were even more careless in looking after their dogs which did not happen to

  371
  involved in any accident would be free from any liability.
  From the logical point of view, it is far better to legislate to keep dogs under control than to penalise the owners of dogs after accidents have occurred.
  We believe that the best way to deal with the problem is to leave it to the experienced discretion of the local authorities. That was the suggestion originally made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. After the most careful consideration a special sub-committee of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety arrived at the same conclusion. After listening to our debate tonight, I must confess that no new suggestion has been advanced which would make me think that any alternative proposal would be more effective.
  Of course, a great deal will depend on public opinion. I believe that the fact that Parliament has legislated in this way to give power to local authorities will have some effect on public opinion. But it will depend, first, upon the willingness of the local authorities to avail themselves of the powers given to them and then on the power of public opinion to ensure that any offenders against the byelaws are fined by the local magistrates. I do not make any exaggerated claims for this Clause, but I believe that, on the whole, it is the best proposal which we can put forward. I believe that it will have a beneficial effect on public opinion and if we are supported by public opinion, it will result in a substantial reduction in road accidents.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say a word about the very important point raised regarding the degree of police cooperation which may be expected in instituting prosecutions, and the fear that, without that effective police co-operation, this Clause may be ineffective?
  Mr. Molson: Opinions among the police are divided, as they are among everybody who has considered this matter. It may be that in some parts of the country the police will be more active in enforcing byelaws of this kind than in other parts. In fairness, since I have been asked the question, I feel bound to say that some chief constables take the
  372
  view that at a time when their forces are not at full strength it would be impossible to devote much time or manpower to enforcing byelaws of this kind.
  For that reason, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly deduced, we included subsection (5) in the Clause. We thought it reasonable and logical, since no local authority is under an obligation to enforce regulations of this kind, that responsibility for enforcing them should be placed on the local authority.
  Mr. J. Harvey: I have already raised one point about possible convictions, but may we be told whether, for the purpose of this Clause, a bitch is, in fact, a dog?
  Major Sir Frank Markham: Frankly, I am not happy about this Clause and I hope that the Minister will look at it again before we arrive at a further stage in the proceedings on this Bill. In Buckinghamshire, we have had experience of local authorities, with the assistance of the police, creating byelaws overnight, and without due public notice criminals are made of ordinary people the next morning.
  I should like to see this Clause amended so as to include something to the effect that due notification must be given in the local Press about these matters. I should like to see inserted in this Clause something to the effect that there must be adequate public notice given about any road being designated as not a dog area in the future.
  Clause read a Second time.
  9.30 p.m.
  Captain Duncan: I beg to move, at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
  "and (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, the said subsection (1) shall not apply to dogs proved to be kept for driving or tending sheep or cattle in the course of a trade or business, or to have been at the material time in use under proper control for sporting purposes".
  This Clause has as its object safety on the road and my Amendment has the same object. Three special considerations are involved. First, in Scotland and England there are at certain seasons of the year large congregations of lambs brought together. They are usually brought to the towns and it really would create complete chaos unless those lambs, sheep and ewes were controlled by sheep

  373
  dogs, which are the first class of case that this Amendment seeks to exclude from the provisions of the new Clause.
  The next class of case relates to the cattle markets. In my part of the country cattle are coming in to the various local towns two or three times a week. Very often they come by train and are then driven to the auction market. There, again, there would be complete chaos in the streets of these local towns unless the sheep dogs, the collies, which are trained to work with cattle, were allowed to herd them.
  The third class of case I have in mind is mainly an English one, although it does happen in Scotland—the meeting of packs of hounds in the local town square, where it is quite a picturesque and popular local custom for the hounds to meet. I believe that they have a thing called a stirrup cup and that afterwards the hounds, under proper control, proceed to their normal duties in the countryside.
  Those are the three classes for which I seek exemption from the provisions of this new Clause, and I think that the need to exempt them is self-evident. I have had discussions with the Ministry about this and I gather from what my hon. Friend has already said in the previous debate that he is willing to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. William Ross: Would the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) explain just exactly what he means? We all understand that it is desirable to have these dogs excluded while they are performing their function of herding sheep and cattle. I, too, belong to a country town, and I know that after the dogs have done their job and reached the cattle market they are still on the roads, like any other dogs. Surely the same legislation should then apply to them as applies to other dogs.
  Captain Duncan: If the hon. Member reads the Amendment—
  Mr. Ross: I have.
  Captain Duncan: —he will see that it says that subsection (1)
  "shall not apply to dogs proved to be kept for driving or tending sheep or cattle in the course of a trade or business,"
  Mr. Page: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It is obviously beneficial to the cause of safety on the roads because the sheep dogs and collies to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred do organise that movement of sheep and cattle along the roads and are themselves no danger to traffic. They are well trained for traffic on the road.
  Mr. Molson: I think that this is a most useful Amendment and I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to accept it.
  Mr. Champion: I agree, of course, with the purpose of the Amendment, but I am a little worried about its actual wording. If a dog is kept for this purpose it does not seem necessarily to follow that the dog will always be driving cattle and sheep under control on the road. There must be occasions when the dog will not be under control despite the fact that it is kept for that purpose. Any exception of this nature should apply when the dog is actually being worked and used for this purpose.
  The Amendment seems to give a wide exception to dogs kept for this purpose and would cover them at all times even when, quite obviously, they would not be under proper control and, in fact, driving or controlling animals on the roads. I think that the Minister is accepting an Amendment which is very wide and would exempt many dogs in circumstances in which they should not be exempt.
  Mr. Ross: I want to strengthen the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). What happens when shepherds come into the town having performed their job and are in the town for the rest of the afternoon with their dogs? The very fact that the dog has been designated as a dog kept for this purpose puts it outside the provisions of the Clause.
  As the Amendment is acceptable to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I can only appeal to a higher authority. Will the Lord Advocate tell us how this will work in Scotland? How will people who are owners of dogs which are well trained and have their dogs under control view this provision when they see a dog not

  375
  on the leash because it has come into town with a shepherd herding cattle and that dog can wander where it likes and the owner not be subject to penalties? This is complete nonsense. I am surprised that a Minister with a Law Officer sitting beside him should so gaily accept this Amendment.
  Mr, G. R. Strauss: Are we to have a reply on the point made by my hon. Friends? They have made an effective point which requires a reply. There may be a good answer, but we have not had it. There may be a case in which a dog is normally kept for herding sheep and the farmer may take it into town on a Sunday when he visits relatives, but then the dog has nothing to do with herding sheep. In those circumstances, surely the dog ought to be under the same control as any other dog which is taken for a walk along a designated street.
  I suggest that the Minister should look at this question. He certainly cannot leave it as it is without giving a reply. Either the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends call for some reply or the Minister should agree to look at the question to see whether something can be done.
  Mr. Molson: I will certainly undertake to look into the matter. It was not entirely new to us, but, in view of what has been said, I will look at it further in the light of the speeches we have just heard.
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the statistics we had from an hon. Member opposite, who referred to the fact that most of these accidents take place in the countryside?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(MAXIMUM SPEED OF GOODS VEHICLES.)
  Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 (which specifies the maximum permitted speeds of goods vehicles) shall be read and have effect as if in subhead (d) of sub-paragraph (1) thereof (which relates to heavy motor cars) in place of the maximum speed of twenty miles per hour there were substituted the maximum speed of thirty miles per hour.—[Mr. Nabarro.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  The text of this Clause is identical to that which I moved in the Standing Committee and which, I think, found majority support in the Committee. It was left in a state of suspended animation because of certain assurances which the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, was able to give the Committee.
  In order to shorten my speech on this occasion—and I have no desire at all to repeat any of the lengthy arguments which were adduced in Committee—might I quote two short passages from my right hon. Friend's speech on 15th December last. He said:
  "It has been in the hope of securing the first objective"—
  that is the removal of this speed limit—
  "that, as a good many Members of the Committee know, discussions have been taking place in the industry as to what are the possibilities. I do not want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster into the discussion as to whom represents whom on the employers or employees side in the industry. It is one of the problems of the industry that this structure, both on the employers or employees side, is a good deal more complicated than that of other industries, and that in itself, may well be a contributing factor to making this a more difficult situation in which to reach agreement."
  Later in the same speech the Minister endorsed the principle of the desirability of removing the 20 m.p.h. speed limit on heavy goods vehicles—that is, vehicles which have an unladen weight in excess of three tons. The Minister then said—and I think these words are very important:
  "As frankly and clearly as I can. I have indicated the view of the Government on this matter, that, on the merits, there is very little that need be said against the proposal of the change. but the time of any such change is a matter which still requires consideration in the light of the discussions which have taken place, and I do not think it would be the wish of any Member of the Committee, in these circumstances. to take a step as we could do today, which might make it more difficult to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955; c. 858 and 860.]
  In the light of what the Minister said on that occasion, my hon. Friends and I withdrew the proposed new Clause in the Standing Committee. We wished the

  377
  negotiations between the interested bodies—the Road Haulage Association, representing certain of the heavy goods vehicle owners on the one hand, the Transport and General Workers' Union representing the majority of the drivers on the other hand, and also the watching brief held by British Road Services—to take their normal course in the hope that a settlement could be reached on what was the principal outstanding impediment—namely, the revision of drivers' schedules and revised scales of remuneration for the drivers. They were very valid objectives to which I, for my part, fully subscribed.
  The fact is that another six months have elapsed. added to a delay of what previously had been more than twenty years while these discussions in one form or another had been going on. In fact, at regular intervals since 1934 this question has been raised in the House and elsewhere, and particularly of course in the lifetime of the second post-war Labour Government, when the then Minister of Transport responded nearly as favourably as did my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee on 15th December to a Motion that was signed by more than 250 Members of this House urging upon the Minister, on a number of very valid grounds, the desirability of raising the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h.
  As a footnote, I might add that there are 110,000 vehicles in this country tied to the speed limit of 20 m.p.h., and of 110,000 vehicles 64,000 of them—this is an important figure—are C licence vehicles, owned for the overwhelming part by private firms. The remaining 46,000 vehicles are of A and B licences, and included in that 46,000 is the entire fleet of vehicles owned by British Road Services which today we estimate at about 12,000 vehicles, which are tied to a limit of 20 m.p.h.
  9.45 p.m.
  I wish very briefly to recapitulate the urgent reasons which make it desirable to revise this speed limit upwards to 30 m.p.h. The first is, obviously, on grounds of much lower operating costs. If all these vehicles can run at the higher speed limit, then, without placing any undue burden upon any interested party, it should lead to greater productivity. The second is on the ground of road safety.
  378
  There have been arguments advanced that road safety would further be prejudiced if these heavy vehicles were allowed to run at the higher rate. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary.
  In 1954, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport used these words, which I think are conclusive:
  "Some recent observations by the Laboratory indicated that on roads in areas not built up about 95 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles exceed 20 miles an hour, and some 65 to 70 per cent. exceed 25 miles an hour."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 68.]
  Furthermore, as I said' in Committee, the final Report of the Committee on Road Safety in 1947 used these words, that
  "having regard to improvements in braking equipment, we see no objection on grounds of road safety to an increase of the speed limit of 20 m.p.h. at present applicable to heavy goods vehicles."
  I suggest that a combination of those two considerations—the fact that 95 per cent. of these vehicles are already exceeding the limit and working at speeds up to 30 m.p.h., and the assurance of the Road Safety Committee that braking power and other mechanical factors are now adequate to deal with vehicles operating at the higher rate—should dispose of any suggestion that road safety would be prejudiced by increasing the speed limit of these 110,000 vehicles.
  It is also, I think, incontrovertible that, particularly on long runs, on which most of these heavy vehicles operate, driver fatigue is lessened if the vehicle may be driven at 30 m.p.h. I have, on occasion, travelled on overnight, long-distance lorries, in the cab, on runs of 200 miles or more. I can imagine nothing more tiring to the driver of the vehicle than having to operate at a speed of 20 m.p.h. throughout, when, very often, on long stretches of open road, he can comfortably drive his vehicle at 30 miles an hour, reaching his destination more quickly, without in any way prejudicing road safety.
  Further, it is an anomaly, of course, that heavy vehicles are tied to a speed limit of 20 m.p.h., whereas heavy passenger vehicles are subject to a limit of 30 miles an hour. It seems to me rather ridiculous that human freight should be placed in a higher category as regards speed limit than material freight. It seems to me rather ridiculous that a vehicle such as a large double-decker bus

  379
  of the heaviest kind should be allowed to travel at 30 miles an hour, whereas a goods vehicle of comparable weight and carrying inanimate objects and material is allowed to travel at only 20 miles an hour.
  Finally, there are substantial financial benefits to be derived by owners, by drivers, and by consumers alike, from a change in the speed limit. There is a tripartite interest in this long-overdue reform. Owners ought to be able to operate their vehicles on a more profitable basis. The drivers, as I averred and explained in some detail during the Committee stage, ought to have a direct participation in the extra earnings and profitability of the vehicles concerned. Lastly, it should be possible to pass on a measure of the savings that a 30 miles an hour limit would bring to the hard-pressed consumer who, in these days, is inevitably faced with rising costs on every hand and is very rarely offered a reduction.
  The Times this morning had a second leader on this subject. It is one of a large group of reputable journals which have supported the view that this speed limit should be raised at an early date. The Times uses these words:
  "Other Clauses remove discrepancies or loopholes in the present law. There is one notable nettle here that the Minister has not grasped—the 20 m.p.h. speed limit for goods vehicles. This, which is everywhere ignored, has its raison d'etre in lorry drivers' schedules, not in road safety. The law should either he amended so that it will he observed and enforced, or exceeding the limit should cease to be a nominal offence altogether. Whatever the law can do to make the roads safe is inevitably weakened if some of its provisions are openly and habitually disregarded."
  Bearing in mind that 95 per cent. of these vehicles break the law, I think we would all agree that the law should not continue to be brought into disrepute.
  The Economist has been so bold as to say, in its latest issue—26th May—that the Minister proposes to resist this new Clause. I am not sure where it gets its information from or what special prescience it claims, but it is quite emphatic. The Economist, after supporting in the previous week the abolition of the 20 m.p.h. limit, wrote on 26th May:
  "The Minister will resist an Amendment by Mr. Nabarro to raise the speed limit on goods vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. at this stage and in this Bill. He should be pressed"—
  380
  that is, the Minister; I am pressing him now—
  "to say why. The 20 m.p.h. speed limit for goods vehicles is never enforced at the moment; the sole reason for retaining it is that the lorry drivers have made it clear that they would resist Mr. Nabarro's Amendment."
  In fact, the lorry drivers have done nothing of the kind. The Economist is wholly wrong in this matter. What the lorry drivers have done, through the Transport and General Workers' Union, is the perfectly reasonable thing, in a complicated matter of this kind, of trying to assure that they will have a proper share of the increased profitability of the vehicles which they drive. That is a principle that I strongly espouse this evening.
  We have had years of delay in this matter, and in an effort to try to put a time limit on these negotiations I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he must do one of two things. Either he should accept the new Clause this evening and add it to the Bill, so that when it reaches the Statute Book—it may be longer, but say within a matter of eight weeks—the negotiating bodies are thereby compelled to bring their negotiations to a successful conclusion. Surely, they can go on sitting round the table for that eight weeks and reach a successful conclusion; it ought not to be beyond their wits.
  Alternatively, as my right hon. Friend already has the powers under the Statute of 1934 to make a variation order for the rasing of the speed limit of these vehicles from 20 to 30 m.p.h., he can proceed on the basis of the 1934 Statute and say tonight that if I will withdraw my new Clause, he will make such an order under the Statute of 1934 and make it operative from a date forward—say, 31st December next or even 31st March, 1957—to give adequate, and more than adequate, time to the negotiating bodies which I have mentioned to bring their further discussions to a successful conclusion.
  The case for this reform is overwhelming, which is most pressingly urgent today on the grounds of national productivity and exports. I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the factor of the improved design of heavy vehicles for our export trade, which is another material consideration. I trust that, when my right hon. Friend replies

  381
  to this short debate on the new Clause, he will be able to give us a more satisfactory answer, indeed, a conclusive answer, on this problem, and add lustre to his not inconsiderable reputation as present incumbent of the office of Minister of Transport.
  Mr. Oliver: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether, if the Clause was passed tonight, the dice would not be loaded against the drivers and in favour of the Road Haulage Association, because once the Clause has been passed, the latter would know that they had got it, and it would only be a question of hanging up on the negotiations, because the Clause which would assist them would already have been approved?
  Mr. Nabarro: If I may reply to that point, may I say that I think there is an element of truth in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am encouraged by the fact that, since we debated the matter in Standing Committee on 15th December last—six months ago—very considerable progress has been made by the negotiating bodles, and, in fact, the issues outstanding have now been so narrowed down as to be capable of resolution within a few weeks. That however, is a matter of wage negotiations into which I do not wish to go further on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to second the Motion.
  It is a pleasure to me to second this Motion at three minutes to ten o'clock, because it gives me the opportunity to point out to the Minister of Transport that it has been pitch dark outside for the last half-hour, but it is not yet officially lighting-up time.
  Those who have been interested in this question of road transport for very many years will confirm everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. Road transport interests have been trying to get this reform brought into force for the last 20 years. There is every reason for doing so at present in fact, it is ridiculous that the law should not be put into proper shape. The real reason why that has not been done during all these years has been the one question of wages.
  I think I have seen, in other capacities, nearly every Minister of Transport since
  382
  Dr. Burgin on this subject, and every Minister has said, "It is very desirable to do this, and we want to do it very soon. We are just waiting for some discussions about wages." Some of us, and, I think, many Conservative Party supporters, are becoming extremely tired of being held up like this. We are tired of a change of the law which is both beneficial and desirable being held up because of disputes over wages.
  The point is that, at the moment, under the 20 miles an hour speed limit, the average schedule is about 16 miles an hour, whereas if the speed limit were raised to 30 miles an hour, the average schedule would be about 22 or 23 miles an hour. This means that the London to Birmingham run, which now takes seven or eight hours, could be expected, if the limit were raised to 30 miles an hour, to be completed in five hours. The question then arises: what is to happen to the driver—whether he is to be expected to drive on to another town or be compensated for the hours that he is saving?
  I ask the Minister tonight to say that he will accept this proposal and bring this reform into effect, and let these discussions take place after the law has been changed. I do not see why we should keep on waiting for these discussions to conclude, when we have waited for over ten years already. In fact. I think it has really been a form of blackmail, because people have said—[Interruption.] I mean the people who are negotiating these wages, or not negotiating them, and I am not going to name the parties. We know that at present there are discussions between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Road Haulage Association, which have not been brought to a head.
  The law in this matter is a laughingstock, and just as much a laughing-stock as the law was in 1930, when, until the passing of the Road Traffic Act of that year, a motor car could not go faster than 20 miles an hour. I do not think we should take into account the question whether those discussions will be completed in a few years or a few months. I ask my right hon. Friend to say that he will change the law, and let the discussions take place in due course afterwards.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. McLeavy: As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has told the House, we had a very long discussion of this matter in Standing Committee, when the hon. Member made a very long speech containing some of the arguments he has adduced tonight in favour of increasing this speed limit. I object, and have always objected, to increasing the speed limit for heavy vehicles because, first, our roads are totally inadequate for excessive speeding by heavy vehicles. It is nonsense for hon. Members glibly to talk about a speed limit of 30 miles an hour for heavy road vehicles when the roads throughout the length and breadth of the land are not conducive to such speed by heavy vehicles.
  The question of the construction of motor roads to enable vehicles to proceed at greater speed has been one of constant discussion in the industry and the nation for many years, but no Government have tried yet to tackle the very serious problem of the inadequacy of the roads to allow the increased speed. Before the House agrees to increase the speed limit for heavy vehicles to 30 miles an hour we ought to await the construction of the right type of roads, roads which will allow for such speeding, roads which, if there is such speeding, will save it from endangering the lives of the people.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster has made it perfectly clear where he stands upon this question of the 20 miles an hour or 30 miles an hour speed limit. He makes no excuse about it. He says that it is in the interest of industry that the speed limit should be increased to 30 miles an hour. It may be perfectly true. Why, however, stop at 30 miles an hour? The hon. Member has glibly told the House that 95 per cent. of the heavy goods vehicles today exceed the speed limit. That is a monstrous assertion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is all right for hon. Members to laugh. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not."] I do not think that that is the interpretation of the position at all.
  Mr. Nabarro: I did not make that assertion. It was made by the then Minister of Transport on 28th July, 1954, when he said:
  "Some recent observations by the Laboratory indicate that on roads in areas not built
  384
  up about 95 per cent. of heavy goods vehicles exceed 20 m.p.h. and some 65–70 per cent. exceed 25 m.p.h."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 68.]
  Subsequently, the Lord Chancellor in another place confirmed those figures.
  Mr. McLeavy: If the hon. Member will read HANSARD tomorrow he will find that what I said was perfectly true. The hon. Member said that 95 per cent. of the vehicles were exceeding the speed limit, and I have quoted precisely what he said.
  I was very surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). If anyone gave the game away, it was he. He said that the Minister should increase the speed limit in order to force an acceptance of the 30 m.p.h. In other words, he asked for the speed limit to be increased before there has been general agreement in the industry on the outstanding matters involved.
  I have made it plain that I am opposed to increasing the speed limit on the ground of public safety and because our roads are inadequate for vehicles to travel at that speed. I make no apology for that. I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster—the question of trade union negotiations on this very difficult problem. In spite of my opposition to increasing the speed limit in any circumstances, I say frankly to the Minister that if there are proceeding at the moment delicate negotiations between both sides of the industry on schedules of duty and the payment of drivers, this is not the time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on behalf of the road haulage employers' side of the industry.
  Whatever the Minister's views may be, and whether or no he has finally made up his mind that the speed limit shall be increased in spite of the road difficulties, I urge him not to accept the proposed new Clause and to say quite emphatically to the House and to both sides of the industry that he is not prepared to be used by one side or the other to secure benefits for either the employers or the trade unions.
  Where delicate negotiations are proceeding, the Minister should await the conclusion of the negotiations before taking any step in the direction indicated by the new Clause. In view of all the

  385
  circumstances, it would be unwise to incorporate the Clause in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Kidderminster has pointed out, the Minister already has power under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to vary the speed limit. Why the hon. Gentleman wants to incorporate into the Bill a new Clause to duplicate the provisions and the powers of the Minister in the 1934 Act, I cannot understand. I ask the Minister, in view of all the relevant circumstances, not to accept this proposed new Clause.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). I wish that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite would get it into their heads that this is not merely a question between the trade unions and the Road Haulage Association. It is a matter which affects public safety and public convenience.
  As long ago as 1950 I mentioned in the House an instance in my own division. There, for more than 1½ miles, a narrow road winds up the hill to Truro from the village of Tresillian, with a deep ravine on one side and a steep hill on the other. If any heavy vehicle observes the 20 mile per hour limit on that road a queue of other vehicles piles up behind it. I have seen that happen frequently in the last six years and again last Saturday. Somebody, perhaps a motor cyclist, at the back of the queue, gets tired of winding up the hill behind the other vehicles, cuts out, and comes round one of the many corners on the wrong side with no room to pass another vehicle should it meet one. Why we have not had anyone killed on that road during the last six years as a result of the 20 m.p.h. limit, I do not know.
  have seen that form of dangerous driving on numerous occasions. The speed limit is merely provocation, because the public gets tired of following meandering vehicles travelling at a ridiculously slow pace. The danger on the roads lies not so much in the imposition of any specific speed but in having one vehicle travelling either much slower or much faster than the remainder.
  Of course, we do not want this matter to be settled without agreement between the two sides of the industry, but I wish
  386
  they would hurry, because it is causing inconvenience and danger to the public.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The view which we on this side of the House hold about raising the speed limit for heavy vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. is well known to all hon. Members. In principle, we are not opposed to such an increase, but we are firmly opposed to its imposition by the Government before agreement has been reached between the trade unions on the one hand and the employers on the other. There is the danger in this new Clause that it would lead to negotiation under duress, that it would be a form of blackmail, as it were, which would not result in satisfactory agreement being reached.
  The Road Haulage Association is selfishly responsible for preventing higher productivity being brought into this industry, because it is standing in the way of sharing the benefits of that higher productivity between itself and the transport workers. Speaking in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made that clear. He stated:
  "The deadlock at this moment is because the Road Haulage Association flatly refuse an undertaking to grant to the drivers any substantial part of the proceeds that will flow from increased productivity. That is what is bedevilling the successful conclusion of negotiations. I emphasise that the Road Haulage Association is an unrepresentative and minority body in this connection".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th December, 1955 c. 825.]
  10.15 p.m.
  The responsibility rests on the Road Haulage Association for selfishly refusing to meet the just demand of the workers that the conditions of operating the vehicles at higher speeds shall be agreed upon before the higher speed limit is permitted. In this respect the transport workers have justice on their side. They are acting rightly and in the interests of not only themselves but road safety. They must have conditions for driving the vehicles which they accept as practicable and as safe as can be. If higher schedules than the men feel capable of carrying out are imposed upon them and they are forced to drive at excessive speeds, the greater danger upon the roads becomes obvious.
  While we oppose the Clause as it stands—as my hon. Friend the Member

  387
  for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) remarked, it is unnecessary because the Minister already has power to raise the speed limit by regulation—
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, the Minister has the power, of course, but what I am anxious to do, and what I have done, is to precipitate the issue, both last December and this evening, in order to try to make the latest incumbent of the office of Minister of Transport make up his mind—after twenty years—to do something which is really desirable.
  Mr. Davies: We strongly object to the Minister saying to the industry today, "In six months time I shall allow you to raise the speed limit from 20 to 30 m.p.h., and, therefore, you have to reach agreement." That would lead to negotiations taking place in circumstances which would prejudice the position of the transport workers.
  While the Minister may be able to offer his services to assist in the negotiations and help towards an early conclusion, I hope that he will not be tempted by the fluency of his hon. Friend to announce the imposition of the higher speed limit without full negotiations having been concluded.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Surely it is all right for the Minister to make an order introducing a 30 m.p.h. limit for the purposes of certain sections of the road haulage industry, such as the C licence section and anyone else who has come to an agreement to work new schedules at a higher rate, even if a small part of the industry has not yet come to an agreement?
  Mr. Davies: I cannot imagine a worse set of conditions in the industry than there would be in those circumstances, with some sections running vehicles at one limit and others at another limit. Conditions would be impossible.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: If the hon. Gentleman's argument were tenable it would mean that in the Lancashire cotton industry nobody would be working more than two looms. The fact that one cannot get standardisation throughout the industry at one moment surely is not an argument that there is not a case for increasing the speed limit.
  Mr. Davies: There are national agreements about wages and working conditions, and they have to be arrived at with the employers. We should strongly oppose the splitting up of the industry into sections having different working conditions. There is a strong case for the increase in the speed limit, provided, of course, that the road safety factor is fully taken into account. There is no doubt that at present the law is not enforced. It cannot be enforced and it is bad for the industry, bad for those who work in it and generally bad when the law is brought into contempt.
  We have to reach a state of affairs where we can bring the law into respect again and that can be done only when the speed limit is increased. The conditions for that increase are those laid down by the Transport and General Workers' Union and other transport workers concerned. They are that they must have a fair share of the greater productivity which results from the increase.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I should like to bring the House back to the Bill. We are not discussing negotiations between the Transport and General Workers' Union and another body of people. On another occasion that might be a proper matter to discuss. We are discussing people who drive dangerously or under the influence of drink, people who are killed on the roads and general safety on the roads. It is in the form of that argument that I rise to support the new Clause.
  The question we have to consider is whether heavy goods vehicles should be driven at 30 m.p.h. Whether when they are so driven people should receive more or less or work longer or shorter hours, is a matter for the people in the industry and nothing to do with us. In support of that argument let us consider when this provision was introduced. I may be wrong, but speaking from recollection I believe that it was in 1934, when these vehicles had solid tyres and were fitted with brakes only on the back wheels and with steering systems entirely different from those on modern vehicles.
  It was probably true to say that to drive at more than 20 m.p.h. was prima facie dangerous and the regulations were very properly made. That was 22 years ago, and since then we have had

  389
  entirely different vehicles on the roads. It may be that a heavy goods vehicle could be driven at more than 30 m.p.h. and on the German autobahnen one can see vehicles a great deal bigger than the ones we are discussing driven not at 30 m.p.h., but at a speed which makes them difficult to overtake in the modern highpowered cars of today. They are safe, because the roads are safe.
  The modern goods vehicle can be safely driven at 30 m.p.h. on proper occasions. I know that the roads are too small and too narrow, wherever the fault may lie, but if it was safe to drive at 20 m.p.h. in 1934 it is safe to drive at 30 m.p.h. today. To say, "We will drive at 30 m.p.h., if we are paid more" and, presumably, at 40 m.p.h. if paid still more, is wrong and irrelevant to the debate. The Minister should say that the time has come when heavy goods vehicles can properly be driven at 30 m.p.h. Whether drivers should be paid more or less, is something for them to discuss with the employers and is altogether another matter. We are not discussing the terms of employment in the industry.
  To negotiate for conditions in which the Minister says that he will make an order, if the two sides of the industry agree to a 30 m.p.h. limit, is blackmailing the Minister. He is saying that he will change the law, if the two sides get agreement. He should at once say that he is concerned only with whether 30 m.p.h. is safe. Having decided that, he should say that the two sides of the industry can reach agreement if they so want.
  Heavy vehicles driven at 20 m.p.h. can be a very much greater danger than if driven at 30 m.p.h. We have all seen the blocks along Wading Street day and night and blocks on the Great North Road day and night. Heavy vehicles often have trailers, and when they are driven at 20 m.p.h. there is a great danger that overtaking vehicles may be forced to the wrong side of the road, or have to cut in, and so forth, and thus cause accidents. Let us stick to this Bill. I am not interfering in any way at all with negotiations on wages or conditions which may be going on. I hope that they will be successful, but they have no relation at all to the Bill.
  390
  I ask the Minister to take the line that the new Clause should be accepted. To say that the Minister has power by an Order has nothing to do with the question at all. The House of Commons has the responsibility. We are very critical, and I hope we always will be, of Orders which Ministers made without discussion in the House. We have had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House tonight and I hope that we shall say that the time has come, and indeed has long passed, when heavy vehicles should be driven at 30 m.p.h. We should recognise the facts of the situation as they exist today.
  Mr. Oliver: The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) seemed to assume that when the 20 m.p.h. limit was fixed, in 1934, no consultations whatever took place between the Ministry and the trade unions. I assure him that he is quite wrong. Negotiations did, in fact, take place. I was in the House and I was also here when the 1930 Act was passed. I know something about the negotiations which took place. The assumption on which the hon. and learned Member based his argument is that 20 m.p.h. is dangerous and 30 m.p.h. is safe. That is a new one to put over in this House.
  I am not suggesting for one moment that 30 m.p.h. is dangerous. I do not suppose that the trade unions arc arguing that; this House is not arguing that. Many times it has been held by both sides of the industry that modern vehicles could run with comparative safety at 30 m.p.h.; but the point is that it is not the trade unions who are holding up this matter. If to concede the point of 30 m.p.h. would restrict the income of the industry, then, of course, there could be an argument based on that; but the trade unions are quite prepared to agree to their members operating at 30 m.p.h. when it is giving to the industry a greater income, yet the industry is not prepared to share that greater income.
  Mr. Doughty: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has followed my argument. I hope that I made it clear—if I did not, I repeat it—that I am not concerned with the sharing, or the duties or hours of work. They are totally different matters. We are concerned in the Bill with the question

  391
  of road safety and the conditions upon the roads, whether it is safe or whether it is not. If the hon. and learned Member is concerned in negotiations, I hope that they will be successful. I am asking the House to say that 30 m.p.h. is a proper speed for heavy goods vehicles.
  Mr. Oliver: That is not the point [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No. The hon. and learned Member is assuming that whilst a limit of 20 m.p.h. prevails on the roads for heavy vehicles it is dangerous and if the 'limit of 20 m.p.h. were increased to 30 the roads would be safe. I do not share that view. I do not suggest that 30 m.p.h. would be dangerous, but the hon. and learned Member is suggesting that 20 m.p.h. is a dangerous speed and 30 m.p.h. is a safe speed.
  Mr. Doughty: I never said anything of the sort. I said that it would be safer to drive at 30 m.p.h. than at 20 m.p.h. because at 20 these heavy goods vehicles cause an unnecessary obstruction upon the road. That is all I said. I went no further than that.
  Mr. G. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is confused with what I said. I did say that it was dangerous in my constituency to drive at 20 m.p.h. on a certain stretch of road.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver: The assumption is that 30 m.p.h. would be safer than would be 20 m.p.h. I do not accept that, but I am not opposed to 30 m.p.h. I made that quite clear to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. We are not opposed to increased speed limits, but we are opposed to an increase in the speed limits if the people employed in the industry do not share the benefits.
  We must not forget this aspect of the matter. Joint negotiations have been going on in this industry for many years, but we must not impose a 30 m.p.h. limit for the heavy goods vehicles without taking into account any negotiations that are taking place. I took it from what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said that negotiations were proceeding at this particular moment. If they are and are at a critical stage, why cannot we not
  392
  wait a little longer? I have no doubt that the Minister, if he wants to, has the capacity and the power to exercise pressure on the two parties to come to an agreement fairly quickly.
  Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps it might be of assistance were I to intervene at this stage because, without in any way wishing to comment on what has been said, I am rather well up to date on these negotiations at the moment. It might, therefore, help the House if I were to say what the position is. Anyone who has listened to this debate must be very conscious of the fact that there is a lot to be said for and against whatever particular view is taken on this issue. I suppose that it would not have been before the House for more than ten years were that not true.
  To get one issue out of the way, I say frankly that I do not think that I should be justified, on grounds of road safety, in refusing to increase the speed limit. As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, the modern lorry, with its vacuum brakes and modern construction, is perfectly capable of being driven on our roads at 30 miles per hour; and whatever we may argue as to how many do it, it is certainly true that a great many of them are so driven.
  The draw-bar trailer—the separate trailer—would not be, and I think was never intended to be, affected by any increase in the limit. I wanted to get that aspect out of the way. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) holds his views on road safety most sincerely, but I do not think that it is fair today to say that a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for heavy goods vehicles, excluding locomotives and draw-bar trailers, is a dangerous speed at which to travel.
  That, of course, is not really the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows— and I thought he made his case very fairly —the main question here—and I do not entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) here—is one of industrial negotiations, of settling the new schedules, etc., that must inevitably arise from a change in speed limit. It is a question not only of schedules but of subsistence, of different turn round—in fact, to some extent, almost a different system of operating. We cannot just put that on one side.

  393
  The first step I took, therefore, when this issue came before me was to try to find out what progress the various parties had made. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance had quite rightly said in Committee that negotiations were going on between the Road Haulage Association, British Road Services and the trade unions concerned—and particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union. I found that some progress had been made, but not very much.
  As a result, I have had several meetings with the parties concerned, with myself in the chair, not, may I certainly say, merely in order to try to negotiate this—that is certainly not my business but that of the parties concerned. I had the meetings in order that they should try to tell me what the difficulties were that lay ahead of them before they could come to me and say, "We have reached agreement and want to tell you when this should be done".
  There is another very relevant consideration. There is a time when this decision is convenient to take from the point of view of all the parties and another time when it is inconvenient. I am advised by the experts in the industry that the right time to take this decision is in the early spring of the year when the days are lengthening. I am told that that is likely to cause much less dislocation in the working out of the new schedules.
  I had another meeting with all the parties concerned early this week, and they were then able to tell me that some progress had been made, that they had reached certain general—I do not say agreements but principles, for example that no man should be worse off because of any new schedules, etc. I do not want to go into those details, and I am sure that the House will understand that this is a matter of industrial negotiation and not one that we should debate in this House. Equally, it is my duty as Minister to endeavour to see whether the matter will go through smoothly or not, and whether the fact that I have done this could be used by one party or the other as a method of blackmailing the other, if one likes to use that kind of word.
  The first thing that I want to say is that in those circumstances I cannot accept my hon. Friend's proposed new Clause, because if I did it would imply an
  394
  immediate alteration in the speed limit. He quite fairly said that this Bill will probably not become an Act for some months, but even so it would be held to be an immediate increase at a time when negotiations are still going on.
  On the other hand, I think it is fair that I should tell the House that I have this morning seen the Road Haulage Association and British Road Services, and they have both informed me that, whatever decision I take, they will not use it as an excuse either to stop negotiations or to import some new conditions into their negotiations. They have also both told me that they are most anxious to continue the progress that they have made until a satisfactory solution is reached, and I think they sincerely believe that they can reach a solution now. I do not think, as I judge the position, that the unions concerned dissent very strongly from that view, although I am not for a moment saying that the whole matter is settled.
  To sum up my position, it is this. First. I think we all agree—and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)—that this is a change that ought to have been made. Successive Ministers have said that it ought to have been made, and it has been before this House for a very long time. The situation is bringing the law into contempt. It is also having a bad effect on the design and construction of new vehicles, because large numbers are now being made to evade the present speed limit when they ought to have been made merely for their duties on the road.
  Mr. George Lawson: I did not intend to intervene, but I cannot allow it to go out that we are all agreed. I do not agree that the speed limit should be raised. I feel very doubtful that if the speed limit were raised to 30 m.p.h. the law could still be enforced. I am very much opposed to the change, and I therefore do not want it to be thought that I am agreed.
  Mr. Watkinson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman did not have an opportunity of speaking in the debate. I accept that he does not agree, and I have little doubt that the hon. Member for Bradford. East does not agree, either. I dealt with the question of safety in my opening remarks, and I am now discussing the industrial aspects of the question.

  395
  I am not prepared to accept the new Clause, because I think that it would be felt, and perhaps rightly so, by the parties to the negotiations, that I or the House was trying to force their hand. Equally, I think we must bring this controversy to an end. It is too late, on the whole, to make the change this year, and the right time to make it is in the spring of the year. Therefore, it is my disposition to make this change in the early spring months of next year.
  Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Watkinson: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will not say "Hear, hear" too quickly, until he understands quite clearly what I am undertaking to do. Having said that I am not prepared to accept his new Clause, I rest on my proper powers, which are perfectly constitutional, notwithstanding what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East says, to make an Order which can vary the speed limit at any time when I make and lay an Order before this House, provided, of course, that the House accepts it.
  I have been assured by the parties concerned that they will go on with these, I think, reasonably fruitful negotiations until they have achieved success. Therefore, I shall not take any action at the moment. I shall probably lay an Order fairly soon after the House returns after the Summer Recess, which will give the parties a further four months to reach agreement; and I consider and hope that in that time they should be well able to do that. Then, I shall lay the Order, which will sot a future date. So that the vehicle building side of the industry can have knowledge and notice of what will happen, that date is likely to be in the early months of 1957.
  That is, on the whole, about the fairest compromise that we can achieve. It gives everybody a chance to get a sensible solution. It gives plenty of warning to everybody and it does not coerce anybody, which I am anxious not to do. On this assurance which I have given to the
  396
  House, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new Clause.
  Mr. Nabarro: In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. At the same time, I express my gratitude to him for a very effective compromise, which should suit every side of the industry. I hope that the matter may be brought to successful fruition and completion on a date not later than 31st March, 1957.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
  It is obviously time to move this Motion. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and to hon. Members, on both sides for making so much progress with a difficult and technical Bill. It gives me the hope that we ought to be able to complete the Report stage of the Bill tomorrow. Then we can take the Third Reading on Friday.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS
  Mr. Robert Jenkins added to the Select Committee.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Instruction to the Scottish Standing Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to England and Wales in order to make provision for the giving and issuing of such notices and certificates for marriage as may be required in connection with the said Bill to be given, or, as the case may be, issued, in England or Wales.—[Mr. Bence.]

  GREAT NORTH ROAD (RECONSTRUCTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I hope that the Minister of Transport will agree that it is high time that there was some definite planning of the country's road system. The number of new vehicles coming on the roads is approximately 50.000 a month, whereas changes in road arrangements and construction in past years have been trivial. The roads arc virtually the same as they were ten years ago.
  England's premier highway is, or should be, the Great North Road, which is designated A.1. I am not altogether sure that we ought not to have a Roads Marks Act, in the same way we have a Merchandise Marks Act, because the term Al is hardly applicable to this road in the circumstances which prevail. It is one of the principal routes for traffic between London and the North, but for three-quarters of its length, about 300 miles, it is wide enough for only one line of traffic in each direction.
  What is even more important, this overloaded highway has all the hazards to be found on the worst of British roads. There are blind bends, hump-backed bridges, congested towns, bottlenecks. zigzag turns, inadequate sidelines—everything calculated to promote the maximum delay and inefficiency. In such circumstances. I feel justified in asking for information of what the Government are doing about providing an up-to-date highway, and providing it quickly in a scientifically planned manner.
  To date, as far as I can trace, there has been no planned attack on this problem; just delay and indecision. We were told years ago that it was planned to improve the road on its present alignment, including by-passes, and that the length between London and beyond Newcastle was to be provided all the way with dual carriageways. Later—and I quote—it was said:
  "In the interests of economy the standard was reduced except here and there to a single through lane of a 30 feet carriageway."
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): Will the hon. Gentleman tell me from what he is quoting?
  Mr. Janner: I am quoting from a reference which I saw some time ago, and which, I believe, came from a statement made by the Government. I have not the actual reference itself, but I will try to provide it.
  Even by 1955 no reconstruction work of any importance had been actually carried out, and the standards to which the road was to be rebuilt were again. apparently, under reconsideration, on the grounds that the design had to be modified because of the traffic which would use the road when the London to Yorkshire motorway had been built. Yet the building of that motorway was already planned when the dual carriageway plan was decided upon. 1n other words, the picture presented is that, having decided upon a certain standard ten years ago, which was subsequently reduced, the question whether or not to have the higher dual carriageway standard was still under consideration in 1955, in spite of the fact that the traffic increased in those nine years more than was expected in 1946. I now understand that it is proposed to provide dual carriageways between London and Newcastle. Thus, in 1956, a return is made to the standard laid down in 1946.
  I would briefly describe the present position on the Al between the Barnet by-pass and East Retford, in Nottinghamshire. After the Barnet by-pass, which itself is adequate for only one line of traffic in each direction, the road is wide enough for three lines of vehicles only to the north of Baldock in Hertfordshire, a distance of less than 20 miles. From there to as far as the county boundary of Rutland and Kesteven it is only wide enough for two lines of traffic, that is, for a distance of about 60 miles.
  On this length there are the usual hazards which one would expect—blind bends, hump bridges, villages and towns, including Stamford, which is notorious for its congestion. In places, there is a lane fenced off for the building of a second carriageway. North of the junction of the Great North Road with the A14, in Huntingdonshire, for a distance of 4½ miles, the road, in places, is along a narrow causeway made because earth

  399
  has been taken away on both sides to make way for the foundations of the dual carriageways which have not yet been built. When one crosses the boundary into Kesteven one finds a road reconstructed recently to 30 feet width for a distance of 14 miles. It then reverts to two-lane width, then back again to three-lane for 1,300 yards south of Grantham. In the open it continues, as two-lane until just this side of the Nottinghamshire boundary. Near the village of Long Benington, half a mile has been widened to about 30 feet. It is something like Joseph's patchwork coat of many colours but not as effective. Just at the boundary the road has been widened recently to 28 feet in two places, totalling under one mile.
  Crossing the boundary, the road becomes 30 feet wide with three lanes, except in built-up areas, and it continues like that as far as the junction with A57, a distance of about 16 miles. A57 is eventually to form part of a by-pass to East Retford. From about two miles from its junction with the Al, the A57 is at present being rebuilt with a new alignment, with dual carriageway. This will join just over one mile of dual carriageway which was built before the war. It will thus be seen that the standard which exists and is scheduled on the length of road with which I have dealt varies frequently from dual carriageways to a single two-lane carriageway of varying width.
  Nor is that all. Despite the fact that the Ministry has apparently laid down that the road is to be reconstructed throughout to dual carriageway standard, one section 3¼ miles north of Stamford is being rebuilt as a single three-lane road to a width of 33 feet. I suppose that it may be contended by the Minister that a second carriageway can always be added, but in view of what has not been done already, can it be seriously suggested that it will be made into dual carriageways in the foreseeable future? If not, what is the value of the Minister's declared intention to provide a dual carriageway from London to Newcastle?
  If it is suggested that the second carriageway will be added within the foreseeable future, perhaps the Minister will explain why his Department is widening this section of the road to 33 feet, which I understand is the standard for a single two-lane carriageway and
  400
  which his Department chooses to describe as a "two-lane carriageway with a central overtaking lane." Clearly, there is no intention for all practical purposes of providing dual carriageways at this point. Once a road has had any major improvements, it is invariably put at the bottom of the list for future attention, and with the huge backlog of hundreds of millions of pounds for road schemes which still need to be completed, it is clear that there is no immediate intention to act upon the stated intention of providing dual carriageways throughout the 300 miles of the Great North Road.
  There is also the problem of building by-passes on this road. I quote the example of Stamford. If ever there was need to construct a by-pass for a town it is here. When one approaches that beautiful town one sees a notice, "This is Stamford. Stay a while amidst its ancient charm." It is really unnecessary. One invariably has no option since one finds oneself in a long queue of vehicles waiting to worm its way through the twisting streets of the town, whilst another long queue of vehicles crawls slowly past in the opposite direction.
  Yet, according to the local Press, the Stamford by-pass has been put back until after the Grantham scheme has been carried out. I would like to know whether that suggestion is or is not wellfounded. Then again, in the "Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury" for 3rd February last, this appeared. There were two headings. The first was, "The real chaos is at the Ministry". The second was, "Official dabbling annoys us all."
  This is what the newspaper said:
  "The Mercury, along with thousands of exasperated motorists and traffic-weary residents of A1 towns, still wants to know when work is likely to begin on improving the Great North Road in this area. We questioned the Ministry of Transport, 'Could you give us any idea when the various proposed schemes are likely to begin?' The Ministry's reply was, 'Your guess is as good as ours. But we can definitely say that they will not be starting on them tomorrow. 'However, the Ministry's spokesman did inform us that his Department was at work on plans. but everything depended on what funds would be available. They did not know the answer to that one from year to year. We wonder if they know the answer to this one? Why is the Al to be translated into a dual carriageway south of Stamford Borough boundary but only widened to 33 feet north of the town? For the latter is the tortuous section of the road between Stamford and Grantham. which is known as the Devil's Walk'."

  401
  I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to Stevenage. Here a new town has been built on one side of the Great North Road and an industrial estate on the other. As was to be expected, conditions on Al at that point have become dangerous and difficult. Indeed, the local authorities were obliged to put a Bailey bridge over the Great North Road for the benefit of the workpeople going between the new town and the factories. Of course there are plans for by-passes—there are always plans. As a matter of fact, we find that the Stevenage by-pass was scheduled under the Special Roads Act which received the Royal Assent seven years ago. In fact, an order for it was made two years earlier as a trunk road.
  Such is the tale of muddle, indecision and procrastination over the re-building of the Great North Road, and, what is more, there is visual evidence that the muddle is being perpetuated. The optimistic statements that are being made about the work which is being done on our road programme are difficult to accept in the face of what one can see with one's own eyes on the Great North Road. The proof of the programme is what is built, and the speed and efficiency with which it is built. Judging by the situation on the Great North Road, the programme is a mess of inconsistent, piecemeal patching, as inadequate as it is intolerable.
  I urge the Minister to assure us that this road will be developed to dual carriageway standard without further indecision or delay. Whatever may be the human failings and individual accidents, the state of the roads is making it harder and harder for drivers to find enough room to drive safely. The stream of traffic on busy roads on all days of the week, not only on holidays, forces vehicles into a compacted mass whenever there is a momentary hold-up somewhere in the line. Fast moving and slow moving vehicles are all compelled to use the same roads. We have heard about that earlier tonight. Often they are wide enough for only one line of traffic in each direction.
  New motor vehicles came on to British roads in March at the rate of more than 10,000 every working day. A total of about 91,000 new registrations for that month is a very high figure. This summer, we understand, there may be well
  402
  over half a million more vehicles crowding on to the roads than there were last summer, and there is no sign of any major relief in the way of new roads to take them.
  If the piecemeal and inadequate patching of the Great North Road is a fair example of how the Minister's road programme as a whole is being carried out, then I suggest that the outlook is very depressing indeed, and calls for a wholly new, vigorous and scientific approach to this most serious problem of our times, namely, the total inadequacy of our roads for present or future traffic.
  I have chosen the Great North Road because it indicates what is going on all over the country. It shows how very important it is that the question of expense should not be an obstacle. It is a very false policy to regard the immediate expense of making our road system adequate as being anything which is detrimental to the general economy of the country and to the safety of those on the roads.
  In America, the roads out of the towns are built to enable traffic to proceed as it should. This cuts down the expense of transport. We are constantly complaining about the costs of our goods for export and for our own use. I am sure that, irrespective of the immediate cost, the Minister ought to consider ways and means of raising money for the purpose, whether by loans or by tolls. The latter method would, I think, be worth considering at present.
  I speak on this subject on behalf of my constituency. Leicester is not quite so much concerned about this particular road between that city and London, in so far as their use of it is concerned, but it is deeply concerned in respect of traffic travelling on it northwards from Leicester.
  I hope the Minister will give us an assurance about this. In answer to a Question today he made reference to 23 projects. There are projects and projects. What are the projects to be? Are they to be scientifically arranged so that the country shall be provided with the necessary roads? Are false economies to be avoided? Is the road accidents problem to be solved, or are we to continue to muddle through year by year without the problem being adequately dealt with? I

  403
  hope that the Minister will give an assurance which will satisfy those like myself—there are many such people—who are concerned about the present position.
  11.3 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): When I saw that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) had chosen to raise the question of the scientific planning of work on A I road I thought there was a reason why he thought that we were not planning adequately the work which has to be done to improve that trunk road. In the course of his speech, however, he wandered far from the subject of Al and has discussed the general question of the Government programme for improving the roads of the country as a whole.
  Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Molson: No, I cannot give way.
  The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech dealt with the general question of the Government road programme. I was surprised that he chose to refer to 1946 and compare what was promised in 1946 with what has been achieved in the last ten years. In 1946, a Socialist Government were in office—
  Mr. Janner: Oh.
  Mr. Molson: Yes. The hon. Gentleman referred to the programme and he has no ground for complaint if I refer to it also.
  It was in 1946 that the grandiose Barnes' programme of great motorways was announced, and in the following year that the whole thing was wound up, with scarcely a beginning made. Since the present Government have been in office, two programmes have been announced—the Lennox-Boyd programme of 1953 and the Boyd-Carpenter programme of last year. Everybody recognises that it takes some time before a programme, after it has been authorised, can be got well under way. At present, both programmes are being got well under way and we have been able to announce that during the next three years a large number of projects will he undertaken.
  The present Minister has given considerable priority to works on Al. If
  404
  the hon. Member had looked in the Library, he would have found deposited there a map showing all the announced schemes. For Al, 23 schemes costing more than £100,000 each are to be authorised in 1955–56, 1956–57. 1957–58 and 1958–59. There is Page Street to Mill Hill, widening; between Apex Corner and South Mimms by-pass, widening; Browney Bridge to Farewell Hall, Durham; Allerton Station; Wetherby by-pass; between Leeming and Catterick, widening; Alconbury Hill to Woolpack Cross Roads; Doncaster by-pass; East Retford by-pass; Wansford Bridge to Stamford Borough Boundary, widening; East Retford bypass—Five Lanes End to the North of Checkerhouse, widening; Colsterworth diversion; Grantham by-pass; Stamford Inner Relief Road; Woolpack Cross Roads to Norman Cross; Sandy to A428, Bedfordshire, widening; Norman Cross to Water Newton by-pass; Biggleswade bypass; Wansford-Water Newton by-pass, Huntingdonshire.
  I do not know why the hon. Member should raise this matter on the Adjournment and ask for information which is already available to him and which has been published. That is what is now being done on the A1.
  The hon. Member asked what general policy we were pursuing and I will tell him. 1t is not possible simply to sit down and say that because we desire to have dual carriageways all the way from London to Newcastle, we shall begin at London and drive dual carriageways all the way. A number of other considerations have to be taken into account. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member mentioned several. There are, of course, particular places on the Al where, because they are built-up areas and there is extremely serious congestion, there is great delay to traffic and danger to life. It is natural that in planning our programme. as we have done, we should give priority to those places in Al where it is most urgent that there should be by-passes.
  We also work, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, through agency authorities, through the highway authorities of the counties. There is a limit to the amount of work which they can undertake at any particular time. If we ask a county to undertake more than a certain

  405
  amount of work, that will merely result in delay. Therefore, in planning the work which is now being undertaken on Al, we have taken into account several considerations. First, a road may pass through an old, in many cases a medieval town, and it may be important to build a by-pass there. The second is whether the alignment of the road is unsatisfactory and congestion is caused, or danger incurred. Thirdly, cases where there is a large amount of traffic, and where the width of the road is particularly inadequate.
  The hon. Member will perhaps be aware that we have periodic traffic censuses which are taken at different places, and, of course, the volume of traffic is not the same at all points on the Great North Road. At some points the traffic is heavier, and the need for widening correspondingly greater. The worst parts, such as at Doncaster and Stamford, or those parts where the accident record is bad, must be dealt with as early as possible; and, it must not be forgotten, we must also take into account the state of readiness of individual schemes. Some local schemes are ready, and it may be possible to get on with them more rapidly than other improvements, even although, theoretically, their urgency is less.
  There are certain existing lengths of good 30 feet carriageway which will not be touched initially unless the traffic there becomes exceptionally heavy. Although it is our intention that there should be dual carriageway all the way from London to Newcastle, it is because we have measured the needs of different parts of this line that we have not begun on a
  406
  straight programme from Newcastle to the south. But a programme has been carefully worked out by the Ministry of Transport in consultation with local authorities, and I think that even the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a very good and practicable programme.
  Mr. Janner: While I have listened very carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I must tell him that I am not
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech on the Motion. If he wishes to ask a question, however, he may do so.
  Mr. Janner: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, first, how much expenditure will be involved in, say, the next three years; secondly, how the plan which we have just heard will decrease the number of deaths, about 100 a year at present; thirdly, why, in the five years during which they have been in office, have the Government done nothing and have announced only recently the plans which are being projected?
  Mr. Molson: It is obviously not possible for me, without notice, to give the total cost, because in the programme now in hand we have only announced, as the hon. Member knows, those schemes costing more than £100,000 each. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a Question, I shall be very glad to give him what figures I can.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ROADS
  Building Operations, Bennet Street, S.W/
  Building Operations, Bennet Street, S.W/
  Programme
  Programme
  Improvement Schemes
  Improvement Schemes
  London—Yorkshire Motorway
  London—Yorkshire Motorway
  A.1 Schemes
  A.1 Schemes
  COMMANDER CRABB (U.S.S.R. NOTE AND UNITED KINGDOM REPLY)
  COMMANDER CRABB (U.S.S.R. NOTE AND UNITED KINGDOM REPLY)
  N.A.T.O.
  N.A.T.O.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  National Service
  National Service
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Deportation
  Deportation
KENYA
  Criminal Procedure (Review)
  Criminal Procedure (Review)
POST OFFICE
  Poles, Finchley Road—Dollis Hill
  Poles, Finchley Road—Dollis Hill
  Land, Edgware (Use)
  Land, Edgware (Use)
  Sub-Office, Birmingham
  Sub-Office, Birmingham
  Accommodation, Aberdeen
  Accommodation, Aberdeen
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Singapore Talks (Publicity)
  Singapore Talks (Publicity)
HOSPITALS
  Nursing Staffs (New Salaries)
  Nursing Staffs (New Salaries)
SCOTLAND
  Spastics
  Spastics
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Parachute Personnel (Jumping Practice)
  Parachute Personnel (Jumping Practice)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read 2ª, and committed.
PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
Read 2ª, and committed.
CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Read 2ª, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL
Read 2ª, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BERLIN KIDNAPPINGS
2.37 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to their reply in this House on February 15 and again on February 29, the matter of the Communist kidnappings in Berlin was taken up with Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev, and if so with what result, seeing that another flagrant instance has recently occurred; and whether the chief offender, a Soviet major, was tamely returned to the Russians despite the protests of the burgomaster of West Berlin.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it
582
clear in another place, on May 1, that in his view it would not be desirable or helpful to deal in detail and in public with matters raised with the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during their recent visit. I Jo not think it would be consistent with this view if I were to attempt to answer the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
The noble Lord may be referring in the second part of his Question to a Soviet national named Felichkin, who was arrested on March 16, on suspicion of having been concerned in a case of abduction from the United States sector of Berlin in the middle of last year, and handed over to the Soviet authorities on March 19. This man was a civilian member of the Soviet Occupation Forces. At the time when he was handed back to the Soviet authorities, the evidence that Felichkin had been concerned in a case of abduction was inconclusive. No further evidence has since come to light.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. I should be very sorry indeed to think that nothing further can be done to stop this abominable practice of kidnapping. May I hope that the Government will continue to pursue the subject with the Soviet authorities?

THE ASWAN HIGH DAM
2.40 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement can be published showing (a) the advantages or disadvantages that would accrue to countries other than Egypt from the construction of the High Dam at Aswan; (b) the advantages or disadvantages attendant upon disinclination to finance a régime as hostile as Colonel Nasser's.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's Question, I do not think that a published statement would serve a useful purpose. In offering to participate in the international scheme to finance the High Aswan Dam, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the views of experts that the project is an essential part

583
of any overall scheme for developing the Nile Water resources as a whole.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, it would convey a misleading impression if this matter were discussed as though it were one of financing a particular régime. What we have been considering is an international plan for a project of economic development which will take a great many years to complete and will have a lasting effect on the economy and living standards of Egypt, whatever Government may be in power in that country.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am not trying to bother the noble Marquess, but even at my age I am consumed by a dipsomaniac thirst for information, and I am a little puzzled at the idea of financing Nasser.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is the noble Marquess able to say that no undue pressure will be put upon the Sudanese Government to agree to the scheme unless they are entirely in favour of it?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, certainly no pressure will be put upon the Sudanese Government to agree to the scheme. As I think I said some time ago, the Sudanese Government had agreed some time past, in principle, and I understand that discussions of detail are now proceeding between the Egyptian and the Sudanese Governments.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is no further information available on the advantages or disadvantages involved for other countries besides Egypt and the Sudan?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, what the noble Lord was asking was whether I could set out in a statement the advantages and disadvantages. I am prepared to tell him that, so far as East African territories are concerned—which are, of course, affected—both the Sudanese and the Egyptian Governments have been informed of the interest which these territories have in any settlement of the disposal of the Nile Waters.

INCIDENTS IN EASTERN ADEN
2.43 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement about the attack by the R.A.F. on three lorries carrying tribesmen alleged to be returning to Aden from Saudi Arabia as reported in The Times of May 26, 1956.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Saudi Arabian statement referred to by The Times of May 26 apparently relates to an incident on May 20, when three large lorries carrying 119 Aden Protectorate subjects, who had absented themselves from the Protectorate without the authority of their Rulers, returned from a northerly direction carrying a number of small arms. The party was apprehended in the Arain area of the Eastern Aden Protectorate by the joint action of the Royal Air Force and the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion. The tribesmen were taken under escort to the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion Fort at Al Abr for interrogation. The small arms, which were brought into the Protectorate illegally, have been impounded.
The lorries appeared to be of Saudi civilian ownership with Saudi drivers and cleaners. They were not attacked or destroyed by the Roy al Air Force. On the contrary, orders were given by the Aden Protectorate authorities for the lorries and civilian drivers to be released, and they were free to return to Saudi Arabia forthwith. The drivers were warned to travel only on the authorised route in future.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Arising out of it, I should like to ask him whether he will make a statement about the report which appeared in The Times of May 28 under the heading "R.A.F. Open Fire on Tribesmen."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think there is some complication of these two incidents. The second one about which the noble Lord has just

585
asked me arises from a report in The Times newspaper of May 28 that an R.A.F. Lincoln bomber had been searching a desert area in the Eastern Protectorate for sixty hostile tribesmen who were fired on by twelve Venom jet lighters on May 26 (that is, of course, after the incident which was referred to in the first Question), and had found traces of blood on the sand near Husn al Abr where the attack was made after the armed tribesmen had refused to surrender. The Governor of Aden has reported that this seems to be an exaggeration of the facts, which were as follows. On May 25 about sixty tribesmen of the Seiar tribe (belonging to the Aden Protectorate) were camped thirty-eight miles from Al Abr; they were returning from Sharura in Saudi Arabia, having been provided by the Saudi Government with arms and ammunition. Instructions were given that they should deposit the arms and give sureties for good behaviour. Negotiations to this end began on May 25 and continued until late on May 26, when they broke down on the tribesmen finally refusing to surrender their arms, and it became necessary to compel compliance with the orders.
To avoid casualties to our forces, the tribesmen were contained by the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion, and two strikes were made by two jet aircraft against the difficult position held by the tribesmen before darkness made further air action impossible. Contact with the tribesmen was lost during the night of May 26/27, and Hadhrami Bedouin Legion patrols on May 27 failed to renew contact, though traces of blood were found near the scene of the air attack. No casualties have been proved. The latest report indicates that a truce has been arranged, at the request of the headman of the Seiar tribe, to enable him to negotiate the surrender of the rifles.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but, arising out of it, I should like to ask the Government whether this strafing of a small band of sixty men by two jet fighters is not likely to make the people of the Aden Protectorates even more susceptible to anti-British propaganda coming from Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think it is absolutely necessary and vital at all times to uphold law and order in the Aden Protectorate. As the noble Lord probably knows, my noble friend Lord Lloyd, who has been on a visit to the Protectorate, will be back, I hope, next week, and I suggest that since he may have first-hand information the noble Lord might address another Question to him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do I understand that Her Majesty's Government have already made representations through the proper channels to the Saudi Arabian Government with regard to these incidents? It seems to me there is great provocation there. Have any representations been made?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I should require notice of that question. I am not at all certain of the answer.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH, AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought front the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

CLEAN AIR BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys
(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove either—
(c) that the contravention complained of was solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable, that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof; or
(d) that the contravention complained of was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection and that the other conditions specified in those paragraphs are satisfied in relation to those causes respectively.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (3), after "section" to insert "except in the case of the emission of black smoke." The noble Lord said: In this Amendment, I am making another effort to alter or amend the one really serious retrograde step which has been taken in this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that:
"dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence."
Then the Bill goes on to provide for various absolute defences. In my submission, that is an alteration and a worsening—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? It might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed generally this Amendment and the next three Amendments which all concern the point which the noble Lord has already
588
mentioned, and then, with your permission, my Lord Chairman, they could be put individually after a discussion. I do not know whether that would suit the right reverend Prelate.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am in the hands of the House in that matter. If the right reverend Prelate agrees, I have no objection. I was going to say that I think that under the present law there is no defence to a charge of the emission of dark smoke, providing evidence is given, which of course would quite reasonably be given by the authorised officer, that a nuisance exists. The present Bill, by providing all these defences, worsens that law; and the object of my Amendment is to provide for that contingency and to ensure that when dark smoke is emitted an offence shall be committed. I am assured that there is no reason whatever why in any circumstances dark smoke should be emitted. There is ample advice available and there are ample appliances which avoid the necessity for the emission of dark smoke in any circumstances. It would be a retrograde step if no provision were made to the effect of my Amendment. In the circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("section") insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: The Amendments which are down in my name are really aimed at the same objective as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and I do not much mind how the end is arrived at so long as we arrive at what we think is a desirable end. All those with whom I have consulted on this subject from various points of view are agreed that these wide open defences in the clause are startling to the many public-spirited and forward-looking industrialists who are putting in or have put in smokeless plant, and are encouraging to those who do not care very much about it. As I understand it, where solid fuel is still used, with improved plant and good stoking the continuous emission of dark smoke can in fact be ended. Of course, economically, it is also a matter of waste which the country can ill afford.

589
As we look at this clause, I think we have also to remember that the period recommended by the Beaver Report is extended from three to seven years. Seven years seems to be a long period in which to allow such strong defence clauses to remain as they are. If the Minister is wedded to them more or less, I wonder whether he would at least consider the possibility of qualifying them. One way in which this could be done, so it seems to me as an amateur in drafting, would be, in line 15, to substitute for "defence" some such phrase as "accepted as a mitigating and extenuating circumstance." I cannot imagine that any local authority would proceed against an owner who was honestly doing his best; on the other hand, in dealing with one who is not doing his best, argument would be more persuasive if power to prosecute successfully were in the background. Those I have met are rather dismayed at the way in which this clause reduces, rather than increases, the power in the hands of local authorities.
Then, if I may say a word about the other two Amendments standing in my name, I would point out that the purpose of both of them is to make paragraph (c) much less rigid, by giving the Minister power to specify and prescribe by regulation. Paragraph (c) has no parallel in the Beaver Report. On the face of it, it seems to ignore the relation between efficient plant and suitable fuel and the likelihood that the situation may change radically in the course of seven years, the cost of fuel being what it is. In support of this plea I should like to quote from a letter from the head of the Department of Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering at one of our Universities, part of which I must confess rather outstrips my own knowledge. He says:
"I adhere to the view that the only way to make the Bill usetul is to be specific about defining the types of appliances and the unsuitable fuels. … I think that we can specify rather stringent requirements beyond which the claim of unsuitable fuel would be definitely permissible."
Then he says something which is quite beyond my knowledge, but I quote:
"My present statement on these requirements would be: for chain grate stokers—no fuel is unsuitable"—
for certain other stokers, certain kinds of fuel only are unsuitable…
"The onus would be on the user to prove that his fuel was one of these two types.
590
This formula might require slight modification, but I think that most technical men would agree with it."
Therefore, in moving these two Amendments, I would say that on the whole I prefer the latter one, and I hope that the Minister or the Government will be disposed to look at this clause, with a view to qualifying the rigidity of the defences.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and at the same time of the two Amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I do not think it would be of great importance which of the various Amendments were accepted, provided the Government see their way to accept one. Quite apart from the economic matters which have been mentioned, and apart from the possibility of ensuring that by proper stoking and the efficient use of furnaces one can get comparatively pure smoke coming from chimneys, from a medical point of view great danger continues so long as people in the towns and in built up areas are allowed to breathe these rather noxious fumes.
I do not want to mention them again to-day, but on Second Reading some figures were quoted showing the great difference between bronchitis and respiratory infections in the country and elsewhere. The same would apply to cancer of the lung and various other respiratory diseases of which we do not really know the cause at the moment although there seems to be some connection between the two. Therefore I should like to put forward a strong plea to the Government, from a humanitarian point of view and also from an economic point of view, because the amount of money spent during the course of a year on these people with chronic respiratory infection is very large.
LORD SALTOUN: It seems to me that once again we are up against the same difficulty as arose in regard to the 1876 Bill against the pollution of water. You will remember that in that Bill there was a proviso that waters were not to be polluted except by people who were using the best processes known to industry at that time. Under that proviso most of the waters of Britain have been so polluted that several years ago, when I

591
sat upon a Private Bill Committee considering the Leicester Water Bill, it was shown that the whole of the waters of the Peak District, with the exception of one small stream which disappeared periodically, were absolutely polluted and unfit for drinking. That being the effect of such a proviso, experience shows us that if this Amendment is not to be accepted the Government should promise that we shall have complete information at a later stage of the Bill as to how the Minister proposes to exercise the discretion which is allowed him in the clause: because people who want to pollute can always bring forward an excellent technical case and the people who suffer are a quite amorphous body who very often find it difficult to get their case properly presented.
LORD ROCHDALE: I should like to agree with the right reverend Prelate when he applauds certain large industrialists for their great efforts and the immense amount of work they have done to ensure that their plant does not produce smoke. We have to remember, however, that firms who have not done so are by no means blameworthy. I am given to understand that there are in this country to-day something like 40,000 hand-fired boilers, a large number of which, we may assume, will be converted to some form of automatic stoking during the seven-year period after this Bill becomes an Act. But there will still remain a large number of small boiler plants which it would be unreasonable or impracticable to convert to automatic stoking. The question is: how are we to deal with those plants? With hand-fired boilers it is almost inevitable, unless one can be absolutely sure of getting the right fuel, that dark smoke will at some time be made. It may result from varying loads, special processes or other causes. On the other hand, as the right reverend Prelate said, while plants that have been converted to automatic operation can cover a wide range of fuels, even those will make smoke and dark smoke from time to time if they do not use exactly the right type of fuel.
This group of Amendments therefore really boils down to the question of whether firms will be able to get the right kind of fuel. Industry is very concerned with its position should they be unable to
592
do so. What are they to do—close down until the right type is available? I believe that this defence that the right type of fuel is not available meets a very reasonable request from industry and I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will leave the present clause unaltered so that this defence of lack of suitable fuel will remain as it is now. After all, we all know that at present the provision of fuel is difficult. Though we hope the position will get easier as years go by, as demand continues to rise so the provision of the right type of fuel may also remain difficult. I would add that this is not an attempt by industry to avoid the duty laid down by the Bill not to make black smoke. I believe that it is reasonable for industry to agree with the present provision.
LORD MOYNE: The noble Lord has just explained that in certain circumstances the emission of dark smoke may not be avoidable, but the Amendment absolutely prohibits not dark smoke but black smoke. Does the noble Lord say that black smoke must sometimes be emitted, or does he think that the prohibition of black smoke could stand, as provided in the Amendment?
LORD ROCHDALE: As the Lord Chairman suggested, I was discussing all these Amendments together and primarily I was referring not to black smoke, to which the noble Lord opposite referred, but to smoke in general. We all know that even with the Ringelmann test, mentioned in the Beaver Report, it is difficult to set a precise limit where one type of smoke changes into a darker type.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds and also those to which the right reverend Prelate has spoken. It seems to me that the Amendment suggested by the right reverend Prelate meets the difficulty outlined by the noble Lord who has just spoken. But I would urge, in support of the principle behind these Amendments, that the problem is a very real one; and when, as now, we have the opportunity of doing something about it, the position should not be weakened. So far as Sheffield is concerned, anyone who has stood on the hill outside the city and looked down on Sheffield will almost always have seen

593
a pall of smoke hanging over the Don Valley. Looking through a book by Mr. Richard Aldington, recently published, I was rather startled to find these words:
"Sheffield, under the perpetual mushroom-shaped Vesuvian eruption of black smoke eclipsing the sun and poisoning human lungs …"
How long is that state of affairs to continue? Anyone who has flown over Manchester cannot have failed to notice the smoke hanging over that city, or to see the bright spot of Wythenshawe, where there is greenness and no dark smoke. I know Sheffield well, though not so well as the right reverend Prelate, and I know that there are public-spirited industrialists in Sheffield who will do all in their power to meet the difficulties and to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government. But is it right, is it fair to these public-spirited industrialists, that people who are not prepared to do so, even bearing in mind the difficulties suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, should be able to "get away with it" and in this Bill be provided with even greater protection than they have had in the past?
In particular, I would submit for your Lordships' consideration the views of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, who, as your Lordships will realise, will obviously be much concerned in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Their view is that the defence of non-availability of suitable fuel in subsection (3) will undoubtedly prove a serious loophole when they come to try to carry out the provisions of the Bill. In the nature of things, that defence will almost always be put forward, and local authorities will obviously be in great difficulty in trying to ascertain whether or not the plea is justified, and whether "all practicable steps" had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark or black smoke. Even if the local authority is satisfied that the plea is not justified, in the next stage—the courts—all the resources of those people will again be used in order to make that defence carry the day. Unfortunately, one must admit that the use of unsuitable fuel may give rise to dark smoke, but I would suggest that we either delete the words "unsuitable fuel" or accept the words of the right reverend Prelate, or something along those lines,
594
and leave it to the good sense and discretion of the local authorities—who, obviously, are not concerned to harass businesses in their areas, and like to encourage businesses—to take action when it seems warranted. I would urge Her Majesty's Government and the Minister to give consideration to this plea which has been put forward from these Benches and supported from the Government Benches.
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and to the right reverend Prelate for agreeing to the discussion of these various Amendments at the same time, because I think they raise quite a serious point. On the one hand, we all recognise the dangers and ills that have arisen from pollution. On the other hand, everyone in this House must have a reluctance to establish criminal offences without any defence in cases where we proceed on the hypothesis that the defendants have done everything possible and practicable to prevent the offence happening. There is always a real danger, in trying to cure ills by creating offences, that what is caused is a disrespect for the law, which consequently has to suffer. That is the balance I want to put to your Lordships, and I hope you will bear with me if I show how the Government have approached the matter and how we have tried to place fairly and squarely on the persons affected the onus and burden of proving their innocence in the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, approaches it slightly differently, and I will just say a word on that because the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, picked up the point after Lord Rochdale had spoken. Lord Milner of Leeds' Amendment deals with "black smoke," and I assume from that (I think I am right) that he was referring to the smoke which is Number 4 on the Ringelmann Shade Chart and which is described in the Chart as "black." If your Lordships have the Beaver Report, I think you will find it on page 49: it is that in which 80 per cent. of the white card is covered by the black lines. Therefore it would be included in dark smoke. In Clause 32 (2) it is included in "dark smoke" but refers only to this limited degree of it which is shown on the chart. I think the answer

595
to that, and the difficulty which we must consider, is that if the Amendment were accepted there would be no defence, however much the defendant could otherwise have proved that he had taken all practicable steps to prevent or minimise the emission of black smoke, if any black smoke were emitted at all.
We have considered this matter very carefully. As your Lordships are aware, there was a great and prolonged discussion on it in another place, and we have come to the conclusion that it is wrong to say that there could never be any exceptions or unforeseen circumstance in which defence could be provided to the issue of black smoke. We think that circumstances do arise when, after all precautions have been taken, it may be emitted for a short time; and we do not think that it would be right to give no defence at all.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Is it not the fact that this clause is retrograde? Previously there was no defence; now the Government are providing a defence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree that it is retrograde, because the defences under this clause are so carefully de-limited. I propose to deal with that aspect in one moment, if the noble Lord will allow me.
I should like now to pass to the approach of the right reverend Prelate, who wants the word "defence" to be left out in relation to dark smoke—not to black smoke but to dark smoke—and to provide merely that any one of the matters specified should be "accepted as a mitigating and extenuating circumstance." Now we have to look at the defences that are provided in subsection (3) (a) (b) and (c). It will be seen that the defences to proceedings for offences under the clause is to prove that the emission of dark smoke was unavoidable for one or other of the following causes: (a) the lighting up of a furnace from cold; (b) some unforeseen or unavoidable failure of plant and (c) the use of unsuitable fuel, and that no suitable fuel was available. Defences (a) and (b) were dealt with in the Beaver Report. I see that some of your Lordships have that Report with you. If you will be good enough to look at Page 28, paragraph 96, you will see these words:
596
"In addition, we recommend that it should be a defence in any proceedings for the defendant to prove that the emission of dark smoke was solely due either to lighting up of the furnace from cold and that reasonable care and efficiency had been exercised, or to temporary mechanical failure which could not have been foreseen."
In a moment I shall ask your Lordships to consider whether we have fairly and properly followed the recommendation of the Beaver Report in that regard. I do not think that in the broad sense we can be said to be acting in a retrograde manner if we have followed the recommendations of the Report which gained so much approbation in your Lordships' House in the first discussion which we had upon it, and has done so ever since. With regard to the defence under paragraph (c), that paragraph was inserted in the Bill after my right honourable friend the Minister had been advised that the emission of dark smoke may be unavoidable, even with the most up-to-date plant, if certain types of coal have to be used. I urge upon your Lordships that subsection (3) has been carefully drafted to avoid the risk of abuse. Take the first point which I have mentioned. The onus of proof is, of course, on the defendant, who must show that all practicable steps have been taken to prevent the emission of dark smoke and, in case (c), that the most suitable fuel available is used. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, realises as clearly as anyone in your Lordships' House that putting the onus on the defendant is something which happens comparatively rarely in criminal law.
I ask your Lordships to consider what would happen where an industrialist wishes to defend himself on one of these three grounds. I take (a). He has to prove first that the contravention complained of was solely—and I emphasise the word "solely": I do not think this is a debating point, but a sound one—due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold. That means that he will not "get away with it". He must show that it was not due to inadequate plant or to out-of-date machinery, or anything of that kind, but solely to the heating up of a furnace which was cold. He must also prove that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke. That is a severe burden. He could establish his defence only by showing that it was due solely to something which I think everyone has

597
recognised as an unavoidable cause of dark smoke—the lighting up of a furnace when cold. He has also to prove that he has reduced the chance to the minimum.
Now let us take the second case, (b). He has first of all to show that the contravention complained of was solely—again I emphasise the word—clue to some failure of the furnace or apparatus used in connection with the furnace. He has also to prove that the failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against. In addition, he has to prove that the contravention could not reasonably have been prevented by action taken after the failure occurred. Your Lordships will see that he has not only to prove that it was solely due to some failure in his plant, hut, if I may put it another way to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, he has to show also that there was no neglect at all. I ask your Lordships to look at this matter objectively and dispassionately. An industrialist has a breakdown in plant which could not have been foreseen or prevented, and it is suggested that he must be convicted of a criminal offence. I must say that that idea does not appeal to me.
Case (c) has given rise to some difficulty. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield has made a quotation, should like to make a counter-quotation—and I promise that I will not make any more. My counter-quotation is from the head of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, Dr. Macfarlane, who said:
"In this country there is a great variety of furnaces which can burn a wide range of coals without dark smoke, but however well-equipped and carefully tended they may be, occasions might arise when they cannot avoid making Clark smoke if they are supplied with another type of coal to which they are not adjusted."
Your Lordships will find that the matter is envisaged, though not specifically dealt with, on the preceding page in the Beaver Report to that to which I referred. How can we deal with that? Paragraph (c) provides that he has to show
"that the contravention complained of was solely due"—
again the word "solely" is used—
"to unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable, that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke …"
598
My right honourable friend gave great consideration to this matter between the different stages of the Bill in another place. Noble Lords who have studied the Bill's progress may remember that he said at a relatively early stage:
"If it can be shown that efficient and up-to-date plant should not in any circumstances, however unsuitable the fuel, emit dark smoke, I consider that the case has been made out for leaving paragraph (c)".
My right honourable friend accepted that, and between the stages made all inquiries; but he was not satisfied on the point. If he was not satisfied on that point, from the fun information which the Government could command, then he had to leave in (c) and I think that, if it is left in, it places a severe burden for anyone to carry if he is to escape liability for a criminal offence.
The right reverend Prelate, whose ingenuity, as well as his eloquence, on this matter is practically inexhaustible, has considered another method of approach. I want to deal with that equally seriously, because I recognise that it is done in the most helpful way, to see whether the difficulties facing the Government, which I have tried to explain, can be dealt with by regulations. Obviously the right reverend Prelate has considered with great care the question: "If we cannot reject the idea of a defence, can we consider whether we can regulate the types of fuel?"—I am passing now to the second Amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I should like to assure him that we have considered this point carefully, and so far as I can see none of the critics has been prepared to state that dark smoke can be avoided in all circumstances when unsuitable fuel is used.
I consider the effect of the Second Amendment, which would be to restrict the meaning of the term "unsuitable fuel" to those specified in regulations made by the Minister. We are doubtful whether this would be a practical possibility. I am sure that everyone will agree that different types of fuel are suitable or unsuitable for different kinds of furnace, and it would be difficult to identify and define them all with sufficient precision. However, there is an even more serious objection—namely, that if account were taken (as I think it would have to be taken) of all the types of fuel which might be unsuitable for different types of plant, the list of proscribed fuels would

599
be a long one. It is not just the length of the list—I am sure the right reverend Prelate appreciates what is in my mind—but that it would really defeat the purpose of the Amendment, because it would tend to widen rather than to restrict the ground of defence.
As I understand the last of the Amendments of the right reverend Prelate, that approaches the matter not only from the point of view of fuel, but of appliances as well. We have considered that the defence should be limited to certain types of furnace. But there, again, we have been faced with the difficulty of defining, out of the great variety of types, the kind of furnaces which are liable to make dark smoke if unsuitable fuels are used. Here, again, I hope the right reverend Prelate appreciates what I am trying to convey. Even if it were practicable, it would seem undesirable to do so, since the effect might be to discourage the continued use of the improved types of furnace.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking so much time over this matter, but it is important. Her Majesty's Government are just as anxious as everyone else to make this Bill successful and workable. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will appreciate that it is one of the responsibilities of any Legislative Assembly not to use the malum prohibitum as opposed to what is malum in se, unless one is absolutely certain that the interests of the community demand that someone should be punished for something for which he is not to blame at all. One has to face up to it; that is the legal logicality of creating a malum prohibitin. Here I feel—particularly after what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said on the subject, with, I may say, great moderation and good will—that it would be wrong to deprive people of any defences, and it would not meet the object to try and do it by detailed regulations. I have tried to show to your Lordships that we have given this matter grave consideration, and I do ask you, in these difficult circumstances, not to press for the creation of an offence to which there is no defence.
EARL JOWITT: Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, I should like to ask him this question, to which, perhaps because I have not followed the matter carefully, I am unaware of the
600
answer. What is the position of a man who is using an old-fashioned furnace, which is more likely to emit smoke than a modern furnace? I know that the Beaver Report says that much money must be spent on modernisation. Suppose the man has done the best he can with the furnace he has got, but that because it is an old-fashioned furnace he cannot prevent it from emitting smoke, though there would be no danger of smoke if he got the furnace modernised; what would be the position of that man under the Bill? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can clear up that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. I gave one example in relation to paragraph (a); that is, the defence from heating up. There, as the noble and learned Earl will see, the first requirement the defendant has to prove is
"that the contravention complained of was solely due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold …".
There I take it that his defence would fail (this was stated without challenge by my right honourable friend in another place) if it was due to inadequate plant or out-of-date machinery, or the like, because then it would not be solely due to the heating up. With regard to paragraph (b) the noble and learned Earl and I have often in the past had to consider this sort of question in Factories Act cases. But paragraph (b) begins:
"… the contravention complained of was solely due to some failure of a furnace or of apparatus used in connection with a furnace."
Then there are the two provisions dealing, broadly, with negligence, where it says, either,
"that that failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against …".
We have often had it said in the past that if you have an old or out-of-date machine you have constructive knowledge of these points.
The question of fuel turns on rather a different matter, but, there again, the words to which I would draw the attention of the noble and learned Earl are,
"that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof."
I do not want to anticipate a later Amendment which the right reverend Prelate

601
has on the word "practicable," but I would just refer the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, shortly, without quoting them, to the many cases that have dealt with "practicable" (I will try to summarise them in answer to the later Amendment) which really say that regard must be had to the newness of the plant in proportion to the danger that is caused. I think that answers the point made by the noble and learned Earl.
LORD MOYNE: Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, could he explain the apparent contradiction between the word "solely" in paragraph (a), which he has several times stressed, with the inclusion of paragraph (a) in paragraph (d)? There seems to be a contradiction. It is a difficult thing to reconcile the two. I daresay the noble and learned Viscount's clear mind can clear the question up straight away; but if not perhaps he will look at it later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend. If your Lordship; look at paragraph (d), you will see that it says
"that the contravention complained of was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection …".
I agree that it appears to cause a difficulty, but I do not think it actually does. I think my noble friend will see it if he considers it in this way. Paragraph (d) deals with a combination of the causes. Therefore, there has to be, say, a heating up or a breakdown in plant. But the heating up, in so far as it is the heating up which comes into the picture, must be only the heating up; as I have pointed out to the noble and learned Earl, the obsolescent state of the plant must not be the cause. Equally, when you are dealing with the second part, that there has been a breakdown in plant, the emission must be due to the breakdown and not to any pre-existing causes which make that breakdown likely and then bring you within the other portions of this clause. In other words, we come down to subspecies, but each subspecies must be the sole cause, the primary reason; there must not be any attempt to shelter in that primary reason for the obsolescence of your plant. I am sorry if it is not very clear. I will take another course in metaphysics and try to make the theory of
602
causation clearer to my noble friend on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: I listened to the noble and learned Viscount's explanation of the point which was put to him by the noble and learned Earl on the question of a rather old-fashioned furnace, but I found it rather difficult to agree with him. I appreciate that it requires certain temerity to disagree on a point of construction with a lawyer of the eminence of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but every lawyer appreciates that questions of construction are notoriously difficult. I should myself have thought that the obsolescence or not of the furnace really had nothing to do with this question. The contravention complained of must be wholly due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold; and if, in fact, the furnace was a rather old-fashioned type which was lighted up from cold, it would be solely or, at any rate, arguably solely, due to that particular furnace's being lighted up from cold. I think dial that is a point of view which a bench of magistrates might well take in coming to a conclusion. After all, they have to look at the matter from the point of view of the making out a case by the prosecution against the defendant on a criminal charge. There has to be a case made out beyond reasonable and probable doubt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? That is exactly what they have not to do. In this case, once the emission of dark smoke is proved the onus shifts to the defence. It is then for the defendant to prove his defence, not beyond all reasonable doubt, but to prove it as defences have to be proved—that is, by substantial preponderance of the evidence. It is not a question of the prosecution proving its case, but of the defence proving theirs.
LORD CHORLEY: With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think there is a decision in your Lordships' House which says that if, at the end of the balancing (I think it was a jury case, but I submit the same proposition would apply), the jury are not satisfied beyond reasonable and probable doubt, then the person who is accused is entitled to the benefit. I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, if he wishes to make it clear, there is no difficulty in doing so. If he wishes to make it quite clear that

603
obsolescence is not to be a defence in this sort of case, then it should be made clear beyond peradventure in the clause itself. I am not suggesting that it should be done now, but there will be time later, on the Report stage. If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to secure that, then I suggest the words of the clause should be altered in order to make it perfectly clear.
EARL JOWITT: I hope the Lord Chancellor will look further at this point. I agree with him that the prosecution having proved the emission of black smoke, the onus is on the defence to bring itself within the clause. Looking at paragraph (a), I confess that I am doubtful as to what the position will be. Suppose the defendant said: "I did all I could with my furnace. It is true that it is an old one, but I have no more money to erect a new one. I took all the trouble I could. It was a cold furnace, and this old-fashioned furnace has this offensive habit of emitting black smoke." If he were to say that, I am not at all certain what the position would be. The noble and learned Viscount could easily make it plain, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley has said, if he put in some sort of proviso—"Provided always that the furnace in question is shown to be up to date or efficient."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always ready to look at the matter again. If the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will allow me to say so, I am the last person in the world ever to resent a different suggestion as to construction. I agree that it is one of the most difficult matters. I myself took it that the state of the plant was really the causa sine qua non, and the phrase "solely due" means that the causa causans must be the heating up. But, as I said, the question of causation is largely a metaphysical one, and is always worthy of further consideration. I will certainly give it that. The noble and learned Earl will not put it on me to make any promise, but I will certainly look at it and consider it with the officials of the Department. I hope that on the broad question the Committee will agree that this is a matter where, in fairness and in equity, a defence should be left, and that, subject to my undertaking to look at this specific point, they will not press these Amendments.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount to look again at paragraph (c) from the same point of view? Suppose that the person concerned has a defective and old-fashioned plant which, nevertheless, will run without emitting dark smoke, provided that some scarce form of fuel is used. In such a case, is it not likely that on many occasions he will have a perfectly good defence against the offence of emitting dark smoke, because he will say that for the time being this exceptional quality of fuel was not obtainable. He could say, "If I could obtain it, it would not matter how old and defective my plant was, and therefore I am not to blame."
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I feel sure that the Lord Chancellor must appreciate that there is a good deal of support for the intention set out in my Amendment and those of the right reverend Prelate. I had hoped that something might be forthcoming. In effect, what it amounts to is that the Lord Chancellor says that the defences which are set out in the Bill will be difficult to make out. Frankly, I do not entirely agree with him on that. It seems to me that it would be comparatively easy to make out the defence in paragraph (a), having regard to the point of an old furnace raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I am not yet clear whether or not, if I have an old furnace and do not do anything about it and instal a new furnace, I shall be held to have "taken all practicable steps" to minimise the emission of dark smoke. It seems to me that that point ought to be cleared up, and I gather that the Lord Chancellor will look into it and come back to it at a later stage.
The Government do not seem to have followed the Beaver Report in this matter. That Report made it clear that, with appropriate appliances, the emission of black smoke should be prevented. They suggested that, in the case of old furnaces, a length of time, perhaps three years, might be allowed in which the furnace might be modernized; and thereafter they suggested a system of exemption for a period, so that some pressure was kept on the owner of the furnace to instal fresh equipment. It seems to me that in this Bill the Government have departed from the existing law in respect of which there is no defence to the

605
emission of black smoke when it constitutes, as it almost necessarily does, a nuisance; nor have they followed on the recommendations of the Beaver Report.
In the circumstances, so far as my Amendment is concerned, at any rate (I do not know what course the right reverend Prelate will take), I must ask leave to withdraw it, and hope that perhaps at a later stage some alteration or mitigation of the present position may be put forward by the Government to make this Bill really effective. At present, in this matter of black smoke it is not so effective as the present law. Admittedly, the present law has not been administered to a very great extent but, now that so much attention has been drawn to this question of the pollution of the air, it may be better administered in future. In any event, it seems a retrograde step to provide the defences set out in this Bill. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I appreciate very much the care and trouble which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor took to answer our points but on this matter I still feel uneasy in my mind. If it can be looked at in connection with subsections (1), (2) and (3), I feel that all I can do is not to move my Amendment to-day.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The right reverend Prelate is not moving Amendments Nos. 1A, 2 and 3?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Requirement that new furnaces shall be so far as practicable smokeless
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no furnace shall be installed in a building or as part of any boiler or industrial plant (being a boiler or plant which is or will be attached to a building or is or will be fixed for the time being to or installed on any land) unless it is so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed, and any person
606
who installs a furnace in contravention of this subsection or on whose instructions a furnace is so installed shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a furnace the installation of which has been begun, or an agreement for the purchase or installation of which has been entered into, before the appointed day.
(3) A furnace to which subsection (1) of this section applies shall not be installed in a building or as part of any such boiler or plant as is mentioned in the said subsection (1) unless notice of the proposal to install it has been given to the local authority and any person who installs a furnace in contravention of this subsection or on whose instructions a furnace is so installed shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) This section shall not apply to furnaces designed solely or mainly for use for domestic purposes.
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved, in subsection (1), after "shall be installed" to insert "constructed or substantially reconstructed". The right reverend Prelate said: In moving the addition of these words, I assume, as I believe the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, that "installed" means provided a completely new installation. If that is so, then one has to take note of the fact that in the steel industry, I am told (and I know this from what I myself have seen), that the normal practice is to reconstruct. Reconstruction, however, is often a costly and very thorough-going business indeed—so much so, that the amateur like myself might say, "This is almost a new installation," when apparently it is not a new installation but merely reconstruction. If that is the case, it would not be unreasonable to submit a substantial reconstruction to the same requirements as this clause provides for new plant. Unless that is done, it seems to me that the clause will have a very limited application.
In order to guard myself against the charge of arguing from the use of one industry and one area, I took the trouble to ask the National Smoke Abatement Society to find out from smoke inspectors in other parts of the country whether the practice there was to reconstruct rather than to put in an entirely new installation, and also what was the ratio between new and reconstructed furnaces. The replies from Bristol, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, all show, broadly, that the practice

607
of reconstruction is the normal one, and that it is a very thorough-going process. Let me tell your Lordships of two statements made to me in the correspondence to which I have referred. One says that it is quite clear that the Clean Air Bill will very greatly increase the amount of reconstruction. So it would serve a useful purpose if such reconstruction were made to comply with the requirement that the reconstructed plant must be capable, as far as practicable, of being operated continuously without emitting smoke. From the other statement, it seems that the ratio between new installations and substantial reconstruction is, roughly, about one to three, if not one to five. That being so, it seems to me not unreasonable to ask that some such words as "constructed or substantially reconstructed" should be added after the word "installed", and consequent Amendments made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, after ("installed") insert the said words.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The purpose of Clause 3, as I think the right reverend Prelate is aware, is to secure that when new premises are brought into operation and functioning in future they are properly designed to function, so far as is practicable, without emitting smoke. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 applies, as the right reverend Prelate said, to the installation of a furnace. I have been advised that this would cover any case in which a furnace might be built or assembled in situ, instead of being delivered and installed, as it were, all in one piece. If that is so, I think the right reverend Prelate will see at once that the word "constructed" is not really necessary in his Amendment.
I am in difficulty over the other three words, "or substantially reconstructed." The clause is not intended to apply in any way whatever to normal repairs or to minor renewals or alterations, or, indeed, to alterations to existing furnaces. On the other hand, the complete replacement of a furnace would entail the installation of a new furnace and therefore come within the terms of this clause. In other words, the individual installing that furnace would be caught under this subsection of Clause 3. I find it difficult to
608
visualise any case in which one would be justified in treating the reconstruction of a furnace falling short of complete and utter replacement as being equivalent to the installation of a new furnace for the purposes of the clause. The right reverend Prelate said, as I understood him, that in the steel industry it is the normal practice to reconstruct a furnace and not replace it. I think there is probably a doubt between the right reverend Prelate and myself upon the actual meaning of his words "or substantially reconstructed," and what I should like to do, without any obligation on myself to accept the Amendment at the next stage, is to consider this matter again, in consultation with my right honourable friend. Therefore, I hope the right reverend Prelate will see his way to withdraw his Amendment at this stage of the Bill, naturally having the right to put it down again on the next stage if he so desires.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his offer. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment, No. 5, and Amendment No. 7 are consequential upon your Lordships' acceptance of Amendment No. 9 which stands in my name. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, therefore, if I discussed the three Amendments together. They are almost consequential, because they are designed to obviate a difficulty which might have arisen if Clause 3 had been allowed to stand in its present form in the Bill. The clause is intended to apply to the installation of furnaces in buildings or, in the case of outdoor plant, on the site where the plant is intended to be used. As a general rule the furnaces are installed in situ; but in certain circumstances the plant may be set up on the site, with its furnace already assembled, the furnace having been "installed" earlier at the factory or at the contractor's depôot. The effect of these three Amendments will be to make it clear that Clause 3 will in fact operate when either the furnace or the boiler or plant containing the furnace is installed on the site. As I say, these are almost consequential Amendments. I beg to move the first one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("building") to second ("to") in line 27 and insert ("or in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.2 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." The noble Lord said: Clause 3 provides that no furnace shall be installed in a building unless it is so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace is designed. The object of this Amendment is to delete the words "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." It would appear that those words are quite unnecessary and certainly undesirable. If such a furnace is installed, and unless it is so installed as to be incapable of being operated without emitting smoke, an offence is committed. The words which I now desire to omit appear to provide a further defence. There is one other point: namely, that the words appear to encourage the use of appliances which are suitable for a narrow range of fuels only. Obviously, as a matter of fuel policy as well as on grounds of clean air, that is undesirable. It seems to me, and I hope to your Lordships, that those words serve no useful purpose, and in the circumstances I beg to move that they be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("smoke") to ("and") in line 30.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In moving this Amendment the noble Lord has rightly described what would be the intention behind it—namely, to leave out the words "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." He thinks that these words serve no useful purpose. On the other hand, my right honourable friend was anxious for them to be inserted in the Bill, and was advised that they should be inserted in the Bill, because they do serve a useful purpose. I am told that furnaces may be designed to burn not only bituminous coal, but also other smoky material such as creosote pitch, trade wastes and, in certain cases, dried sewage sludge. It is probable
610
that such furnaces could all be operated without making smoke if, for example, they were fired by coke; but the purpose of the clause is to secure that they are designed so as to function without making smoke, so far as is practicable, when burning the kind of fuel which is, in fact, likely to be used in them. The words which the noble Lord seeks to omit are intended to secure this, and in the judgment of my right honourable friend, to leave them out would in fact make the clause far less effective in its purpose than it is at present. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to do that.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: While not altogether accepting what the noble Earl says, in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("as part of") and insert ("in").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.5 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to subsection (4):
"not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Government an opportunity of carrying out what I think was something of the nature of a pledge which was given in another place. The short point is that under the clause as it at present appears in the Bill larger domestic type furnaces, serving blocks of flats and hotels, and so on, would be excluded. Obviously, it is desirable that they should be brought within the purview of the clause. The aim has been a rather difficult one: namely, to exclude furnaces of small domestic boilers, for small hotels and so on, but to bring within the clause the larger types of furnace. I am advised that the most satisfactory test of the size of a furnace is the heating capacity in terms of British thermal units per hour, and that the figure set out in my Amendment would be appropriate in the circumstances. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at erd insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord is quite correct: my right honourable friend in another place undertook to consider this particular point after it had been discussed at some length in the Committee stage. The Amendment which the noble Lord has put down is one which fulfils the requirements, and I therefore have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at end insert—
"(5) This section shall apply in relation to the attachment to a building of a boiler or industrial plant which already contains a furnace or the fixing to or installation on any land of any such boiler or plant as it applies in relation to the installation of a furnace in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Requirement that grit and dust from furnaces shall be minimized]:
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: May I express my appreciation that the Government have thought fit to accept the last Amendment I proposed? As the present Amendment is on much the same lines, I hope that they will see their way to accept this one, too, if only for the purpose of consistency. The terms are identical to those of the Amendment which I moved to Clause 3 (4), and I submit that it is desirable that a similar Amendment should be made to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end insert ("not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour.")—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 15 standing in my name: namely, to insert a new clause after Clause 8. Perhaps I might deal with them both on the present Amendment. They are largely consequential on an Amendment which was made on the Report stage in another place, to reduce the rate of fuel consumption which is specified in Clauses 6 and 7 from ten
612
tons an hour to one ton an hour. I do not think there is any need for me to give any further explanation, and accordingly I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Requirement that new furnaces shall be fitted with plant to arrest grit and dust
6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no furnace in any building shall be used—

(a) to burn pulverised fuel; or

(b) to burn, at a rate of one ton an hour or more, solid fuel in any other form or solid waste;

and no oven in any building or on any land shall be used to subject solid fuel to any process involving the application of heat, unless the furnace or oven is provided with plant for arresting grit and dust which has been approved by the local authority or which has been installed in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the local authority, and that plant is properly maintained and used, and if a furnace or oven is used in contravention of this subsection the occupier of the building or land shall be guilty of an offence.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The next two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 12a, are alternative and if the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, agrees, your Lordships will probably find it convenient if he speaks to the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Might I be so bold as to suggest that the next four Amendments be taken together?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "ton" and insert "hundredweight". The right reverend Prelate said: This is one of the important points of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that, as the provision was first drafted, the figure was 10 tons. May I start by mentioning figures from my own area? A careful survey of innumerable chimneys in the Sheffield district showed that only power stations were burning above 10 tons of solid fuel an hour; and only half a dozen of the biggest works above 1 ton. Of these, an actual sample of 1,946 showed that 52 were burning above 1 cwt., 21 were burning between 1 cwt.

613
and 1 ton, and only 3 were burning over 1 ton. I have also been given figures for Birmingham showing that in recent years no furnace has been installed burning above 5 tons. The conclusion which our Smoke Abatement Committee reached was that not only is 10 tons far too high but that even 1 ton was really too high to be effective.
The discussions which took place in another place on this subject did not seem to be very conclusive. I read carefully the Parliamentary Secretary's reply in which he argued, as against the Association of Municipal Corporations, that the critical rate of fuel consumption at which arrestment plant becomes complex was round about 1 ton. The view of our committee is that the figure is considerably below that, and that rather more elaborate methods are required for it to be extended down to 1 or 2 cwt., or at any rate to 5 cwt.
This is a matter which vitally concerns not only industry but the community. The increase of dust and grit in the air has been very considerable in recent times. There are various reasons for this, one of which, in a sense, is economic and industrial progress. But the effect of grit and dust upon the stonework of buildings and fabrics is very serious. Many of our buildings which have for centuries withstood the English climate are unable to stand up to the wear and tear caused by grit and fine dust. We realise that to ask industry to eliminate grit and dust from their plant is to ask them to spend money on which they themselves will get no obvious return. It is a service to the community; and there it differs from getting rid of smoke, which is economic waste. One cannot say that of dust and grit. Nevertheless, it is of very great importance to the health of human bodies and to the fabric of buildings that we should control, and try so far as possible to eliminate, the emission of grit from chimneys. That being so, I suggest that the figure of 1 ton now in the Bill is still too high.
Arguing this matter in another place the Parliamentary Secretary said he thought that furnaces burning less than 1 ton would be caught by the provision in the previous clause. But leaving aside the question of whether the phrase "any practicable means … for minimising" is strong enough to catch so solid a fish
614
as a furnace burning 1 ton of fuel or more an hour, what assurance have we, under the Bill as it stands, that this clause implies that special installations will be required for furnaces using above 1 ton? This is a growing evil and the community have the right to ask industry to install expansion chambers and flues in the smaller type of furnaces, and even to go to the very substantial expense, in many cases, of more elaborate machinery to control grit and dust in furnaces burning fuel at a higher rate than 1 cwt. per hour.
My only other point is that I am proposing a figure of 1 cwt. per furnace, not 1 cwt. per boiler. I understand that the words "furnace" and "boiler" are ambiguous: a boiler may have more than one furnace. It so happens that in my part of Yorkshire they seem to use a large number of what are called "Lancashire boilers" which have two furnaces. The Amendment asks that the figure should be 1 cwt. per furnace, and not 1 cwt. per boiler. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("one hundredweight".—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)
4.18 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: It has been suggested that my Amendment, No. 12A, might well be discussed with that of the right reverend Prelate. I also gather that it is proposed that we should discuss the four Amendments dealing with the measurement as well as with the arresting of grit. I am quite happy to take that course, but I would make the point that they are not exactly the same arguments. Whilst the first two Amendments might not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, it could still be an advantage if one or other of the others could be. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the community could reasonably ask industry to do its utmost to get rid of the emission of grit and dust, but we ought to put more emphasis on the general obligation placed on anyone, irrespective of the size of his installation, in complying with Clause 5. I welcome the fact that this Bill has followed the suggestion in the Beaver Report that the question of smoke on the one hand and grit and dust on the other should be kept quite separate, because, as the Report made clear in paragraph 98, separate and special apparatus needs to be used for each. The Report uses the word "independently."

615
As has already been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the Bill as it originally went to another place had in it a figure of ten tons—the figure that was proposed by the Beaver Report. I cannot imagine for one moment that that figure of ten tons was a figure arrived at haphazardly or without careful consideration, bearing in mind what an extremely eminent Committee that Committee presided over by Sir Hugh Beaver was. It must have been considered to be the right figure, for one reason or another. It must have been thought, rightly or wrongly, that ten tons was the correct figure. We then come to the Report stage in another place, when, quite suddenly, the figure was changed by the Parliamentary Secretary from ten tons to one ton. That is reported in the House of Commons Hansard for April 10, Columns 107 to 109. The interesting thing about what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that ocassion was that he gave no real explanation why that change should be made. There was no real attempt—except the one mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—to say why one ton was better than ten tons.
What was particularly curious about what the Parliamentary Secretary said was that he made no reference to another clause in this Bill which must be taken into account if we are considering the figure in this particular clause: he made no reference to Clause 32 (7). Clause 32 is the interpretation clause, and I should like to read to your Lordships the three lines of subsection (7), because unless we have those three lines in our minds, we cannot properly consider this figure and whether it should be ten tons, one ton, five tons or anything else. Clause 32 (7) reads:
"Any furnaces which are in the occupation of the same person and are served by a single chimney shall, for the purposes of sections six to eight of this Act, be taken to be one furnace."
That, to my mind, is fundamental to consideration of the point which we now have under discussion. The Beaver Committee, in Paragraph 98 of their Report, did not use the word "furnaces"; they used the word "installation." Unfortunately, the Report did not give any definition showing what they meant by "installation," but it seems pretty obvious that what they must have had in mind was not one furnace but a number of
616
furnaces served, shall we say, by one chimney or more than one chimney—in other words a boiler-house or a place where furnaces were installed from which there was a focal point for the emission of smoke in the works as a whole.
If that was what they had in mind, the inclusion of Clause 32 (7) was, I take it, the Parliamentary draftsmen's attempt to interpret the Beaver Committee's Report. To a considerable degree they have succeeded, I think, but not entirely, because I would suggest that Clause 32 (7) was not inconsistent with the original figure of ten tons but is inconsistent with the present figure of one ton. That is why I am seeking, by my Amendment, to take the figure, not lower, like the right reverend Prelate, to one hundredweight, but upwards to five tons. The effect of Clause 32 (7) is to bring under control furnaces burning very much less than one ton if there are a number of furnaces emitting into one chimney. The result of all that, as I see it, is that the Bill is very far away from the recommendations of the Beaver Committee in this respect, and will have the effect of making a large number of firms spend considerable time, effort and money on small furnaces, when the fact is that a large number of small furnaces do not really emit dust and ash. They emit smoke, certainly, but not dust and ash. The effect of putting effort, time and money into these small furnaces will tend to detract attention from what is most important—that is, doing the most that possibly can be done for the larger plants to see that they have really efficient, up-to-date dust and grit arrestors.
One way of getting over the difficulty later would be to omit Clause 32 (7). That, for a large amount of industry, would meet the case. But it would not meet the case for those in the iron foundries industry. They have a rather special problem about which I should like to say a word or two. The changing in another place of the figure from ten tons to one ton brought a great number of small foundries within the ambit of the clause. It means to them that, despite their general obligations under Clause 5 (which, of course, stand), they have also to satisfy their local authorities as to the precise means they are going to employ for arresting the emission of grit and dust. That may be all right for furnaces in boilers; but melting iron in a cupola is

617
not a simple furnace operation. It is a highly complex metallurgical process, in respect of which there can be said to be no one fixed standard for measuring the efficiency of grit and dust arrestors. I think it is to the credit of that particular industry that, irrespective of this Bill—in fact before this Bill came into view at all—it has done a considerable amount of research to determine how grit and dust can be most appropriately arrested in its plants. There are a number of different methods, varying very considerably in complexity and cost.
But the position as we have it now is that there is no protection for the iron foundries apart from their being able to appeal to the Minister under Clause 6 (4), which, for a small firm, is an undesirable thing to have to do often. There is no protection against the establishment by some particular local authority of an unreasonably high standard with the result that those firms which come under that particular local authority will be put at a serious disadvantage as compared with other firms under other local authorities which may not take such a particularly strong line. I should like to emphasise that there are these different forms of arrestors which iron foundries can use, from dry arrestors and wet arrestors right up to the most expansive electro-static precipitation methods, which would be quite unreasonable in the case of small firms. These last arrestors are very expensive, and insistence on their adoption might mean disaster to a small firm. What is the best course, therefore, to adopt? I have suggested that the omission of Clause 32 (7) would cover a large range of industry, but not the iron foundry industry. It seems, in the light of that, that it would be preferable to take a fair compromise and change the figure of one ton to five tons, which would leave under control of the local authorities some thousands of furnaces in the country as a whole.
So much for the question of the provision of arrestors of one kind and another. As we are also considering in this debate the question of measuring apparatus, I should like to make one or two farther points. First of all, the clause that deals with the measurement of the emission of grit and dust applies to all furnaces, not merely to new ones, and in this case the arguments would apply for most of
618
industry, exactly as the arguments I have already given in regard to the arresting equipment itself. Again, iron foundries raise a specifically difficult point. I understand that, following the recommendations in paragraph 42 of the Beaver Report, the British Standards Institution are investigating the standards for sampling the flow of smoke from furnaces to determine the grit emission. That is all to the good in most foundries, but in those where the cupolas work intermittently and often for short periods, the measurement of grit and dust is liable to create a serious problem. My information, from good authority, is that it might be necessary to have round the point of emission a number of stations where the grit would be measured and the total emission calculated. That is all right with a big firm who have highly qualified men to do such work, but I doubt whether the smaller firms would have the qualified staff to do this work and make the necessary deductions. Therefore, I hope that, even if the noble Earl cannot see his way, as I very much hope he will, to give any help on the argument put forward on Clause 6, he will at least do something in the case of Clause 7 and not make it obligatory for the smaller firms using smaller furnaces to put in complex measuring equipment.
LORD JESSEL: My noble friend Lord Rochdale has dealt fully with these two Amendments. I am puzzled when I see all the different figures which have been put forward. We have 10 tons in the Beaver Report. One ton was inserted in another place. The right reverend Prelate now wants 1 cwt., and my noble friend and I are asking for 5 tons. Obviously, this is a matter on which there can be a wide difference of opinion. I should like to support my noble friend particularly on the points he made in regard to Clause 32 (7). I know of an instance which illustrates the difficulty of this clause. It is of a boilerhouse which has five Lancashire boilers, all of which use the same chimney. They each raise 10,000 lb. of steam per hour and the total fuel consumption is 3¼ tons of fuel per hour. Just because they use the same chimney, they are considered as burning 1 ton of fuel per hour, when in fact each is burning considerably less. If they had had five separate chimneys, they would have been outside the scope of these provisions.

619
If the Government cannot accept my noble friend's suggestion of substituting 5 tons for 1 ton, I hope that between now and the Report stage they will consider substituting some figure considerably in excess of 1 ton—maybe 3 tons would be the right figure, or at any rate a more acceptable figure to industry. But I think it is important that if any figure less than 5 tons is going to be retained in Clauses 6 and 7, then Clause 32 (7) should be deleted and small furnaces using the same chimney relieved of these onerous obligations.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: We have had a long and detailed debate on the four Amendments under discussion. If I may say so, with deep respect to the right reverend Prelate and to the two noble Lords who have spoken, I find myself "between the devil and the deep blue sea." In view of the arguments which they have presented, I cannot help thinking that the action that the Government took in another place in deleting the figure of "10" and putting in "1" should commend itself to your Lordships. What are we trying to do in this Bill? We are trying to relieve the people who live in industrial areas of quantities of smoke in the air and to reduce the amount of grit and dust that flows into the air from these furnaces. In the Beaver Report it was explicitly stated that any furnace burning fuel at the rate of 10 tons an hour and more should be provided with a grit-arresting plant. After considerable discussion in another place that figure was reduced to 1 ton, for the purpose of trying to prevent a large amount of grit and dust from being thrown into the air by these furnaces. I think it would be quite unreasonable to reduce this figure to 1 cwt. and equally unreasonable to increase it to 5 tons.
Reference has been made to Clause 32 (7), which provides that if two or more furnaces are served by a single chimney, they shall be treated, for the purposes of Clauses 6 and 7, as one furnace. This was taken into account, of course, when my right honourable friend decided to ask in another place for the insertion of the figure of 1 ton an hour; and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, I do not think that is in any way inconsistent with the Bill. I am advised that the amount of grit and dust discharged from a chimney is approximately
620
the same whether the chimney serves a single furnace or a group of furnaces burning the same quantity of fuel, and the requirements of Clause 6 are not more onerous in the latter case. Where two or more furnaces discharge through a single chimney, a single grit-arresting plant will often suffice.
It is true that the other two Amendments dealing with Clause 7 are not quite on the same line as those dealing with Clause 6, but the same argument applies in both cases, because one clause requires that new furnaces shall be fitted with grit-arresting plant and the other says that the measurement of grit and dust emitted from furnaces must be measured, if it is so decided. Taking all in all, I am bound to say that, judging between the right reverend Prelate and the two noble Lords, I think they would both be wrong; and I commend to the Committee the figure which was inserted in the Bill in another place—namely, 1 ton an hour, instead of 10 tons, and rather holding to that figure, instead of altering it to 5 tons.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: The noble Earl is obviously in a strong position between these two Amendments, and in view of what he says, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: Before the right reverend Prelate withdraws the Amendment I should like to make one further point. My noble friend Lord Munster did not mention anything about iron foundries. There is a special case there, and I would ask whether it is possible for him to give them some sort of assurance. The obvious thing for the iron foundries to do, when the Bill becomes an Act, if it goes through as drafted, is to apply under the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926, to be regarded as a special process. They would then come under the jurisdiction not of the local authorities but of the Alkali Commission, and would not be subject to local politics, which are always an undesirable thing in anything so technical. That procedure might or might not be successful; it has to go through a public inquiry.
There is another way in which my noble friend might be able to help. Clause 6 (3) says:
"The Minister may give directions to any local authority, or to local authorities generally, requiring that any application for

621
approval under this section, or all such applications … shall be referred to the Minister and shall be dealt with by him …"
Could my noble friend give an undertaking to discuss that provision with his right honourable friend the Minister to sec whether it would be possible to give a direction under this subsection as regards iron foundries. Alternatively, if the whole of that industry could be taken out of the jurisdiction of the local authorities and put under the Alkali Commission, it would make it much easier for them, seeing that it is such a technical matter.
LORD BURDEN: I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has used one or two phrases which I think that, on consideration, he will agree are not quite fair. I think it would be wrong to say that the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act—or, indeed, of any Act of Parliament, so far as officers or members of a local authority are concerned—will be subject to local politics. From my experience of local authorities, which is a fairly long one, the question of politics never enters into whether there is an infringement of the law. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not agree to the removal of a large number of furnaces from the purview of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, must know that it would be impossible for the Alkali Commission to carry out anything in the nature of adequate inspections if large numbers were to come within their purview, unless the Commission were strongly reinforced with fresh staff. With the manpower situation as it is to-day, that would seem to be a wrong proceeding, when we have men trained for this work at present employed by local authorities.
LORD ROCHDALE: I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burden. He says that the Alkali Commission would be quite unable to deal with the problem. But surely, by the same token, many local authorities would be quite inadequately equipped to deal with anything so technical as an inspection in the case of iron foundries. It is because there is that danger that we in industry feel it would be much better to halve the responsibility the same for the whole industry over the whole country.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I apologise for not answering ray noble friend's point
622
before, and I will do so now. My right honourable friend the Minister has decided that he will reach a decision in any case after there has been a public inquiry. I cannot go beyond that at the present time. As regards Clause 6 (3), that deals with a somewhat technical point. I understand that the choice of grit and dust arrestment plant to serve any particular purpose often calls for specialised technical knowledge, which may not in every case be available to local authorities concerned. What the subsection does is to enable the Minister to direct that applications for approval under subsection (1), either generally or in such special cases as he may specify, should be referred to him and be dealt with by him, instead of by the local authority. However, I will certainly convey the other remarks of my noble friend to my right honourable friend.
LORD FARINGDON: I profoundly regret the decision which I believe that the right reverend Prelate has arrived at—namely, to withdraw his Amendment. To be perfectly frank, and with respect, I thought that the noble Earl who replied for the Government "waltzed away" on a very easy tactical reply; in fact, I do not think he replied at all to the right reverend Prelate, whose figures I found most impressive. The temptation, with two such Amendments as these, was apparently more than the noble Earl could resist, Frankly, I do not consider that the right reverend Prelate has been answered, and I regret what I think to be his intention of withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question: Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ROCHDALE: I should like to raise one matter on the question that this clause should stand part of the Bill. Suppose that an industrialist applies to a local authority for approval of plans and those plans are approved; that the industrialist spends a considerable amount of money implementing them, and that then, for one reason or another, the results are not satisfactory and grit and ash are emitted. Will he still be liable under Clause 5? In other words, does Clause 5 override the provisions of Clause 6?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that I cannot answer that detailed and technical point offhand, but if the application has been accepted and approved by the local authority I do not believe that it would arise. However, I will inquire into the matter.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Information about furnaces and fuel consumed]:
4.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved to add to the clause:
"(3) In order to promote full-scale research into the best means of reducing and eliminating the emission of fumes, and of sulphur oxides in particular, the Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make a contribution to facilitate such full-scale research."
The right reverend Prelate said: I am not sure whether this is the right place for this particular Amendment, but it is a simple point. Industrialists, members of local authorities and the general community are increasingly concerned at the growing menace from fumes which cannot be distinguished from fine dust, and also from sulphur oxides. We are told by all the experts that a great deal of research needs to be done before an effective and not too costly means can be found of dealing with this matter so as to control the emission of fumes and sulphur. I am told that it will require full-scale research, which may necessitate the setting up of comparatively expensive experimental plant—the kind of thing which can be done only on the national level.
So far as I have been able to discover, the only reference to research in the Bill as it stands is in Clause 23, paragraph (a), which to some extent throws the onus on local authorities. We know, of course, that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, over which the Leader of the House presides, grants aid for research, not only with regard to fuel but also on many other matters, and many university departments benefit by these grants. But there are many claimants on the funds of the Council, and it is the opinion of many working on research that the kind of plant required to deal with this difficult matter is larger than any one university or one local authority can finance and set up. Therefore while I do not suggest that this matter should be taken altogether out of the purview of the
624
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, I suggest that the Minister concerned with the operation of this Bill should have power to make direct grants for research. Responsibility should not be left to the local ratepayers. The subsection which I am proposing is only a permissive one. It will, of course, have to be moved and considered in another place, but I believe—and I make this point to your Lordships—that its presence in the Bill would give encouragement to scientists and technicians working on the subject who know both its importance and also its considerable difficulties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)
LORD AMULREE: I should like briefly to support the right reverend Prelate's plea for more work to be done on the effective ways of dealing with the sulphur fumes which are emitted. We know—and it was borne out during the bad fog in 1952—that to a great many people the effect of sulphur di-oxide fumes are lethal. Yet not a great deal appears to be known about methods of preventing the discharge of these fumes into the atmosphere. Like the right reverend Prelate, I am not quite sure whether this is the right place in the Bill to put in words of this nature. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply can tell us whether work is being done by the Government Department, or whether there will be any possibility of encouraging such research in the future.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to support the plea which has been put forward by the right reverend Prelate. I am sure the Minister will agree that the right reverend Prelate has put his Amendment in such a way as to command acceptance, and that he has been eminently reasonable. What is asked for is that there should be an inquiry into these problems which everyone agrees are with us to-day, and upon which there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to the causes or the remedies, as is shown by the correspondence which appeared in The Times some little time ago. I think we shall be shamefully neglecting our duty if, now that we are on this problem, we sidetrack this particular question which is relevant to clean air and the cause of pollution. If this is not the right place

625
for the Amendment, I beg the Minister to give us some assurance that it will be looked at, and that at an appropriate place an Amendment can be moved. I ask him not to say "This is going on; it is being done", and so on. How many times have we found that we have had promises of that kind—not particularly with regard to this Government, but any Government—and have found that nothing effective has been done! Time after time, when the Labour Government were in power we had pleas from the Opposition, "Put it in the Bill and then we know that something will be done." In this instance, I urge the Government: put something in the Bill, and then we know that something effective will be done in connection with this very real problem.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I fed that noble Lords, in whatever part of the House they sit, will fully appreciate the reasons which have prompted the right reverend Prelate to put down this Amendment. There is, of course, nothing of more importance to the successful functioning of this Bill in future years than a continual and constant research. Let me say at once to the noble Lord opposite that there is, of course, no intention whatever to sidetrack research in any way. It has been continuing over a number of years now. It has been continuing with such success—as I shall endeavour to explain in a few moments—that I do not think it would be appropriate to insert in the Bill a provision to cover something that is in fact being done. As the right reverend Prelate has truly said, the work is undertaken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for which the Lord President is responsible. He is advised by a Council, one of whose members is Sir Hugh Beaver himself, who was, I suppose, the founder of this Bill. The D.S.I.R. arranges for research on air pollution to be carried out by the Fuel Research Station or by a research association, the chief one of which is the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, or by a university or industrial firm under contract.
Without wearying the Committee at great length, I think I ought to give them some indication of what is happening at the present time. First of all, the means of making existing furnaces capable of burning fuel smokelessly. Work is con-
626
tinning on this matter at the Fuel Research Station, and further research on the metallurgical furnace is carried out, as the right reverend Prelate probably knows, at Sheffield University, under contract for the Fuel Research Station. Secondly, there is the improvement of existing methods of measuring the amount of grit and dust emitted from furnaces. Work on this problem is being undertaken by the Fuel Research Station and the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, in conjunction with the Committee of the British Standards Institution.
I come, thirdly, to the provision of increased supplies of smokeless fuel. Here, the Fuel Research Station is carrying out research with the object of producing reactive coke more cheaply by a slight modification of normal gasworks practice. Next, a word on the sulphur oxides and the prevention of the release of sulphur in coal by the addition of lime and other substances. Research here is being undertaken by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, under contract for the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Then there is the question of removing sulphur oxides from flue gases. Possible methods of removing these sulphur oxides are being examined at the Fuel Research Station and at Sheffield University, under contract for the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In addition, there are other researches going on into questions of fumes from the exhausts of motor cars and all motor vehicles; into iron and steel, clay products, the chemical industry, and so on.
So the House (and, I trust, the right reverend Prelate) will agree that we are actively pursuing this matter by having research into all these vitally important subjects upon which so much of the success of this Bill must ultimately depend. But, as I have said, with all the sympathy I can command for the right reverend Prelate's proposal, I do not honestly think that there is any necessity to include in the Bill something which has been already done and which has, in fact, been continuing for some years. It is vital that this research should go on and, I hope, at an ever-increasing pace.
LORD BURDEN: Before the right reverend Prelate deals with his own Amendment, could the noble Earl give

627
us an approximate idea of the amount of Government monies allocated for these purposes in the last financial year, or is it left largely to private enterprise to do these things?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If I remember rightly, the total Vote for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research—either this year or last year; I am subject to correction—was £6½ million.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: I appreciate very much the noble Earl's reply but, on the facts that have been given to me, I am not altogether satisfied with it. We are dealing here with something which may menace the health of this country and at an increasingly rapid rate. There are other things which we have to bear in mind—atomic plants, and so on, up and down the country. One must appreciate very much the amount of Government money going into scientific and industrial research, but there are many other demands upon that fund and upon the good will of the Council in all directions, quite independent from this particular one. It is a matter of consideration whether we are not here dealing with a particular issue, vital, urgent and menacing, which may require more centralised research and experiments than can be conducted by any single university. Therefore I think there is a case for some special treatment of this particular matter over and above the many excellent things which are being done at present under the auspices of the Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Obviously, I cannot press my Amendment against the opinion of that Council, but I would ask the Minister to look into this matter and satisfy himself that all is being done as quickly as it can be done, and effectively and centrally, to deal with this particular problem which is menacing human life in this country at the present time.
LORD BURDEN: Before the Minister replies to that, I am sure there was no intention to mislead, but what I should have asked—I do not know whether I made myself clear—was for the expenditure by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on this specific problem of pollution. I take it that the figure I was given was the overall expenditure of
628
the Department. I believe that, under the Bill which we had before us a little while ago dealing with the organisation of the Department, the Lord President of the Council is authorised to give a specific direction to the new Council to undertake a definite piece of work. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, can that aspect of the problem be looked at, to see whether a specific direction can be given for this real problem to be investigated?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Let me say at once that I have no doubt whatever that, when the Lord President reads the Report of the discussion which your Lordships have had on the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate, he may be in a position to give the matter further consideration. But, in point of fact, I ask your Lordships to believe that there is ample inquiry and research going on into this matter at the present time. As I said, Parliament provides a sum of £6½ million for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I could not possibly divide that sum and say how much is spent on examining sulphur oxides and how much goes on making existing furnaces capable of burning more fuel smokelessly. Nevertheless, a sum of £6½ million is provided by Parliament for this Department.
Moreover, the field of research carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with other Government Departments and industry is a wide one. For instance, the industrial research associations which are sponsored by the Department number over forty, and they have a combined income of some £5 million a year. It is true that they are controlled by their subscribing member firms and, of course, they are helped by grants from public funds. Your Lordships will observe at once that a considerable amount of research work is being done in this matter. I should be in a very difficult position if I tried to give any assurance to the right reverend Prelate that I could accept this or any other Amendment. On merely a technical point, I am told that, if an Amendment of this nature were inserted in the Bill, it would be necessary for a new Money Resolution to be passed in another place. That would not be possible at the present time.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: I must not put that matter to the test. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Grit and dust from outdoor furnaces, etc.
(". The four last preceding sections shall apply in relation to the furnace of any boiler or industrial plant (being a boiler or plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land) as they apply in relation to a furnace in a building:
Provided that in relation to a furnace which is not in a building, the references in those sections to the occupier of the building shall be construed as references to the person having possession of the boiler or plant.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Height of chimneys
9.—(1) Where plans for the erection or extension of a building outside the administrative County of London, other than a building used or to be used wholly for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say as a residence or residences, a shop or shops or an office or offices, are in accordance with building bye-laws deposited with the local authority and the plans show that it is proposed to construct a chimney for carrying smoke, grit, dust or gases from the building, the local authority shall reject the plans unless they are satisfied that the height of the chimney as shown on the plans will be sufficient to prevent so far as practicable the smoke, grit, dust or gases from becoming prejudicial to health or a nuisance having regard to—

(a) the purpose of the chimney;

(b) the position and description of buildings near thereto;

(c) the levels of the neighbouring ground; and

(d) any other matters requiring consideration in the circumstances.

LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words beginning "other than" down to and including "offices". The noble Lord said: This clause was inserted in another place during the Committee stage. Of course, it was a welcome addition to the Bill. It does not, however, apply to residences, shops and offices, and there seems to be no necessity to exclude those premises, since fuel-burning plant installed in them can give
630
rise to nuisances, particularly in the case of shops and offices. Does the term "residences" include hotels? If, as I understand, it includes hotels, why should offices, shops and residences be excluded? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("London") to ("are") in line 39.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As the noble Lord has pointed out, the clause makes provision to secure that certain new chimneys are of sufficient height to prevent, so far as practicable, nuisance from the smoke, girt, dust or gases discharged from the chimneys. As he quite rightly points out, chimneys of residential property, of shops and of offices are excluded from the clause. This clause was inserted so that it should apply chiefly to industrial chimneys, to the chimneys of buildings such as laundries and incinerators, and to other chimneys—your Lordships can judge for yourselves where it would be necessary for the clause to apply. I am informed that in point of fact there is no necessity to exclude these words which the noble Lord seeks to omit, for the height of chimneys in general may be regulated by building by-laws made under Section 61 of the Public Health Act, 1936. This enables general requirements to be imposed as to the height of chimneys of houses, shops and offices, and it is not thought that further provision for this purpose is necessary in these cases. The noble Lord will appreciate at once that Clause 9 of the Bill is supplementary to the general by-law provisions, but that the by-law provisions under the, Public Health Act, 1936, still remain in force.
LORD BURDEN: In view of that explanation, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Smoke control areas
(4) The Minister may from time to time by order exempt any class of fireplace, upon such conditions as he may specify in the order, from the provisions of this section, if he is satisfied that such fireplaces can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuels without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to delete subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Would the noble Lord like both his Amendments to be discussed together?
LORD BURDEN: If that would meet the convenience of the Committee. In regard to the first Amendment, the point that I would submit to the Committee is that if a certain class of fireplace can be used for burning fuel other than an authorised smokeless fuel without producing more than a little smoke, there can be no guarantee that this will be so operated. The important point is that no officer of a local authority has any power of entry into a private house to ascertain how the fireplace is being operated. Furthermore, even if the amount of smoke emitted from a single chimney is not substantial, a group of chimneys in one neighbourhood will, in the aggregate, obviously cause a considerable nuisance and, in effect, defeat the object of the Bill.
My second Amendment is to enable any local authority, by order confirmed by the Minister, to declare the whole or part of its district to be a smoke-control area. What can be done by a local authority with the co-operation of the residents and local industry and the railways in preventing smoke and nuisance arising from it can be seen from a most interesting report produced by one member of the Home Counties Smoke Abatement Society, at Watford. It is a most interesting document. Subject to certain exemptions and limitations, the emission of smoke from the chimney of any building in such an area creates an offence—that is, if the order is confirmed by the Minister. Under the clause there are exceptions which the Association of Municipal Corporations particularly would like to see removed, and one in particular with which this Amendment is designed to deal is contained in subsection (4). This subsection provides that:
"The Minister may from time to time by order exempt any class of fireplace, upon such conditions as he may specify in the order, from the provisions of this section, if he is satisfied that such fireplaces can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuels"—
that is, inherently smokeless fuels—
"without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke."
632
I would submit to the Committee that this subsection should not have been included in the clause. I agree that the matter was fully argued in another place, but as Her Majesty's Government have refused to withdraw the subsection, I venture respectfully to submit that it should be tightened up so far as possible, so that no class of fireplace should be exempted unless it can be used without producing any smoke at all. That is the object which I seek to achieve with this Amendment. I do not say that it will happen, but conceivably under the clause as it stands with that particular subsection, the whole purpose of the Bill may be defeated by the Minister, under pressure, granting the exemptions which he is empowered to do under the subsection. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Burden.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Whilst appreciating fully all that my noble friend has said and the source from which the Amendment comes, I am sorry to say that I feel that there are preponderant reasons why the clause should be retained rather than omitted. It seems to me essential that every encouragement should be given to those who can invent or produce appropriate smokeless appliances burning any kind of fuel. Of course, there are such appliances. The subsection which my noble friend is proposing should be left out has been called the "escape clause" because it enables the Minister to approve domestic solid fuel appliances for use in a smoke control area when burning bituminous coal, so that the use of such appliances, even when burning such coal, shall in itself be a defence to a prosecution by a local authority.
As I understand it, my noble friend would agree to that being done, to such appliances being exempted, providing they consume 100 per cent. of smoke. We have already been told that that is a practical impossibility. But there are appliances, of some of which I happen to know, which are made in my own city of Leeds, which burn something like 90 per cent. of the smoke. At present there is one particular appliance which I assume will become an exempted fireplace. It is a solid-fuel furnace burning high quality bituminous coal in a closed

633
furnace on the down-draught principle, and the emission of smoke expressed in terms of weight per pound of fuel consumed is, in fact, less than the amount of smoke emission from some of the processed smokeless fuels which are in use and which no doubt will be exempted under this Bill. That being the case, and it being extremely desirable to encourage the use of such appliances and the saving of coal effected by most of them, and to do away with smoke, it seems to me that it is right to give the Minister—not, your Lordships will observe, the local authority—an opportunity, from time to time, by order, to exempt any such class of fireplace. The fact that this clause remains in the Bill will encourage inventors to develop, as I know they are developing, smokeless fuel furnaces of every description for water heating, fire box operating, open fires and other uses, in all of which cases, I am assured, smoke emission can be reduced by 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. It seems desirable to encourage the use of such appliances, and, therefore, while appreciating what my noble friend says, I hope the Minister will be disposed to retain the clause.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: After hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I feel there is nothing further for me to say. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, certainly managed to have considerable knowledge of the brief which was placed before me to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, the reasons why the Minister did not wish to accept his Amendment. The purpose of the clause is to enable the Minister to exempt by order any class of fireplace from a smoke control order if he is satisfied that such a fireplace can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuel without producing any substantial quantity of smoke. My right honourable friend is anxious to encourage the use of fireplaces which can burn any kind of fuel, including oil, with little or no smoke, or can burn the kind of fuel now being developed which I understand produces only about 20 per cent. of the smoke normally produced by an ordinary fireplace. Such appliances will make an important contribution to smoke abatement without making any serious demands on supplies of solid fuel which are at present scarce. From what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Milner
634
of Leeds, and myself, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will agree that to ellipt these words would be to defeat the very object which my right honourable friend, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in fact has in mind; and I hope that he will therefore see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Is the noble Earl referring to the second Amendment?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was dealing with the two Amendments together, but I can deal with the other one in a very few moments.
LORD BURDEN: In view of that explanation and the fact that the Opposition are equally divided, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 16.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Dealing with the first Amendment, I would explain at once that my right honourable friend thinks it desirable that he should be able lo encourage the development and use of types of appliance which may contribute to smoke abatement without the consumption of the authorised smokeless fuel, by exempting them from the operation of Clause 10 (2). I endeavoured to explain that to the noble Lord in replying to his second Amendment, but of course the same argument applies to his first Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: In view of the noble Earl's explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Abatement of smoke nuisances
15.—(1) Smoke other than—

(a) smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling; or

(b) dark smoke emitted from a chimney of a building or from a chimney serving the furnace of a boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land,

shall, if it is a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, be deemed for the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, to be a statutory nuisance, and section one hundred and nine of that Act (which contains a saving from the operation of the said Part III for mines and industrial processes) shall not apply in relation to it:
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "if it is a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood" and to insert:
", if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood,".
The noble Lord said: In my view this is a very important Amendment. This clause provides that smoke emitted from the chimney of a private dwelling or smoke from a chimney shall, if a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, be deemed to be a statutory nuisance. Clearly it would be extremely difficult to prove that such emission was a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, for those words are very general, amorphous and difficult to define, and presumably it would be necessary for a local authority to produce a good deal of evidence from inhabitants and satisfy the court that such emission was, in those circumstances, in fact a nuisance to the inhabitants. Obviously the evidence to be given might vary a good deal and would be the subject of difficulty, with experienced witnesses subjected to technical cross-examination. Furthermore, the nuisance might be experienced in streets and working places by those who are not inhabitants. The nuisance might affect a district without any dwellings and therefore without inhabitants.
In those circumstances, in order to make the matter more concrete I propose to insert the words in the Amendment:
"if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood."
A local authority is clearly definable and is capable of expressing an opinion. In my experience this is quite a usual phrase in Acts of Parliament and would appear to make the matter perfectly clear and definite and enable the clause to be fully effective. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 27 and insert (",if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood,").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This clause suggests that certain emissions of smoke, if a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, shall be deemed to be a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936. That means that if the local authorities are in a position
636
to prove the existence of smoke emission which constitutes a nuisance to the inhabitants of any locality, they can employ the procedure of Part III of that Act for instituting the necessary summary proceedings for securing an abatement of the nuisance. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, seeks to do something which I think is entirely revolutionary. He wants to render the person liable to proceedings if, without proof but merely in the opinion of the local authority, the smoke emission is deemed to constitute a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood.
I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree with me that that is really wrong in principle. The emission of smoke may or may not be a nuisance. It is a matter upon which there may be quite legitimate and sound differences of opinion; but the local authority's opinion surely cannot be the determining factor. I would not suggest that now or in future we should deprive a defendant of his elementary right to adduce evidence to the contrary in accordance with the universal principle that a defendant in criminal proceedings is presumed innocent until he is found guilty; and I should not like to depart from that, even though it is only a question of somebody who makes a nuisance of himself by emitting smoke.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
(3) The waters to which this section applies are—

(a) all waters not navigable by sea-going ships; and

(b) all waters navigable by sea-going ships which are contained within any port, harbour, river, estuary, haven, dock, canal or other place so long as a person or body of persons is empowered by or under any Act to make charges in respect of vessels entering it or using facilities therein.

5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY VISCOUNT WAVERLEY had given notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act a vessel in any waters to which this section applies shall—

(a) if those waters are within a port health district, be subject to the jurisdiction

637
of the port health authority for that district and notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-seven of this Act it shall be the duty of the port health authority to enforce the provisions of sections one and two of this Act in relation to vessels;

(b) if those waters are within the district of a local authority but not within a port health district, be subject to the jurisdiction of that local authority;

(c) if those waters are not within the district of any local authority or any port health district, they shall be deemed to be within the district of the local authority or the port health authority, as the case may be, whose district includes that point on land which is nearest to the spot where the vessel is."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has been put down after consultation with the Association of Dock and Harbour Authorities, and has at least, I submit, the merit of being capable of explanation in very simple terms. Its object is twofold, It aims, in the first place, at removing what appeared to be the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction, or at least uncertainty as to jurisdiction, as between a local authority and a port health authority and, in the second place, at giving port health authorities power by Statute—that is, by the express terms of the Statute—to enforce the provisions of the Bill. In both respects the objects of the Amendment are to make the Bill more effective.
Since the Amendment was put down in the first instance, there has appeared on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 25, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster. That Amendment (which is to Clause 29 (4)) represents; if I may say so, an improvement on the original drafting of that particular subsection and appears to remove entirely the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction. Therefore, Lord Munster's Amendment, if accepted, will deal with the first of the objects of the Amendment which stands in my name, though it leaves untouched the second object. In regard to that, those who are associated with me in this matter have all along felt that it would be a distinct advantage if the powers of local authorities under this Bill were set out clearly in the Statute itself. We still take that view. On the other hand, we recognise that according to the structural arrangements of the Public Health Act of 1936 the powers of local authorities in such matters as these are defined not by the express terms of the Statute but by
638
orders made by the appropriate public authority. In these circumstances, while I still hope the Government may be prepared to reconsider the point to which I have referred, I do not now think it proper to move this particular Amendment, and I will not move the consequential Amendments which appear in the Marshalled List.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY VISCOUNT WAVERLEY moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "are" to insert:
"within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and are"
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an entirely different matter. Its purpose is to make quite clear that local dock and harbour authorities are not being made responsible in any way for enforcing the provisions of this Bill outside the seaward limits of territorial waters. This is a precautionary measure which we think is rendered necessary by the fact that clock and harbour authorities have in certain instances to carry out navigational functions outside seaward limits. It would clearly be quite wrong to compel such local authorities to assume responsibility for the enforcement of penal provisions. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 15, after ("are") insert the said words.—(Viscount Waverley).
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Viscount has fully explained the purpose of his Amendment, and I am glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:
Exemption for purposes of investigations and research
".—(1) If the local authority are satisfied, on the application of any person interested, that it is expedient so to do for the purpose of enabling investigations or research relevant to the problem of the pollution of the air to be carried out without rendering the applicant liable to proceedings brought under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, the local authority may by notice in writing given to the applicant exempt, wholly or to a limited extent,—

(a) any chimney from the operation of sections one, five, ten, fifteen and eighteen of this Act;

639

(b) any furnace, boiler or industrial plant from the operation of subsection (1) of section three of this Act;

(c) any furnace or oven from the operation of section six of this Act,

in each case subject to such conditions, if any, and for such period as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Any person who has applied to the local authority for an exemption under this section may, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Authority on the application, appeal to the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to the applicant and the local authority, give any exemption which the authority might have given or vary the terms of any exemption which they have given."
The noble Earl said: A somewhat similar Amendment to this was moved at the Report stage in another place, and my right honourable friend agreed that a provision in the Bill was desirable in order to facilitate investigations and research into methods of preventing air pollution. The Bill at present contains no saving for contraventions which might occur in the course of such investigations or research, and I think it is clearly desirable that there should be some safeguarding words. Accordingly, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Clean Air Council]:
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section the Clean Air Council and the Clean Air Council for Scotland shall review the proceedings of local authorities under this Act and it shall be the duty of a local authority to make available to the Council each year any information required for this purpose."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make the proposed Clean Air Council already provided for in the Bill fully effective. As at present drawn, the clause does not seem to be effective. The words I propose to insert would make it effective. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad in some ways that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment because it gives me the opportunity of making the facts clear. My right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland already have power to obtain all the information of this nature that may be needed or which they may require from local authorities. That power is given to them under Section 284 of the Local Government Act, 1933 and Section 354 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. As these powers are already in the hands of my two right honourable friends, I think the noble Lord will agree that no further provision in the Bill is necessary.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Before the Committee passes Clause 21, may I just give your Lordships some indication of views which my right honourable friend the Minister has expressed? Noble Lords may remember that on the Report stage of this Bill in another place the question arose of whether there would be an annual report to Parliament on the progress of the policies outlined in this Bill and whether that report to Parliament would be statutory. My right honourable friend undertook to consider this with care. He has done so, and he has come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to make this statutory upon him, for he already reports to Parliament on a variety of other subjects connected with his Department, such as housing, water supplies or equally important mailers. He feels, therefore, that this matter might well be included in the report which he already makes to Parliament, but that he should not be under a statutory obligation to make a report, any more than he is in the cases of housing and water supplies.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Penalties]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I should like to move formally the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment seeks to make the offence created by Clause 3 (3)—that is, failure to give notice to a local authority of installation of a new furnace—subject to a maximum penalty of £50 instead of £10, and at the same time to increase the maximum penalty for an initial offence under Clause 10, of emitting smoke in a controlled area, from £10 to £50 for any one day on which it is emitted. I have given this matter considerable thought since the Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. My right honourable friend has conic to the conclusion, I think rightly, that the maximum penalty of £10 in the City of London and under other local Acts which prescribe smokeless zones, which have worked successfully up to date, should be retained as the maximum in this Bill. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that it might be wiser to leave it as it is in many of the local Acts at the present time.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I think my noble friend's intention was to obtain the Government's view on the purpose of the Amendment. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Application of Public Health Act, 1936, &c.]:
THE EARL OE MUNSTER THE EARL OE MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that where a port health authority or joint board has functions, rights or liabilities under this Act—

(a) any reference in this Act to a local authority or its district includes, in relation to those functions, rights or liabilities, a reference to the port health authority or board or its district;

642

(b) for the purposes of this Act, no part of the district of any such port health authority or board is to be created, in relation to any matter falling within the competence of the authority or board, as forming part of the district of any other authority."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment leaves out subsection (4), which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in the remarks he made on his first Amendment, and inserts the words which stand on the Marshalled List. The Amendment seeks to cure a defect which has appeared in the clause. The clause provides that no part of the district of a port health authority having functions under the Bill is to be treated for the purposes of the Bill as forming part of the district of any other authority. Port health districts frequently cover areas extending into two or more local authority areas. A large number of port health authorities, however, are clothed with functions only in respect of vessels and do not exercise the functions, for instance, of the smoke nuisance provisions of the public health codes in relation to any land areas.
In these cases, Clause 29 (4) would have left the land areas outside the operation of the Bill. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection, which is the only part of this Amendment which is different front Clause 29 (4) as it appears in the Bill, cuts out the local authority only in relation to matters within the competence of the port health authority, and the local authorities will thus be left to exercise functions under the Bill in relation to land areas within the port health district. In the case or the Port of London, the port health authority exercises jurisdiction over wharves and docks, and this may also possibly be the case in some other port health districts. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection will cut out the local authorities in the case of matters falling within the competence of the port health authority. I venture to think that this is one of the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was anxious to secure, and I hope, therefore, that I may rely on his support of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I am much obliged to my noble friend. As I said before, this Amendment represents a distinct improvement on the original wording of the Bill and it will have the great advantage of removing a possible doubt

643
about the jurisdiction of the different authorities in a particular area. I gladly support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Interpretation]:
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved in the definition of "practicable," in subsection (1), to leave out "to local conditions and circumstances, to the financial implications and". The right reverend Prelate said: It seems to me that the Bill is wise not to try to define too closely the word "practicable." I think it is good also that in this clause emphasis is laid on the importance of developing more efficient plant. I am sorry that it singles out, and not just leaves amongst the other things which are bound to be considered. "local conditions and circumstances "and" financial implications". If I were making a speech on this subject in public, I would have used the phrase "local conditions and circumstances" to enforce my argument that in the East end of Sheffield the local conditions and circumstances are so bad that it is particularly important to make this Bill operative in that area. I am told—here I stand under correction if I am wrong—that in a document of this kind, when you refer to "local conditions and circumstances", you mean exactly the opposite. If local conditions and circumstances are so very bad, you must, as it were, modify the regulations rather than stiffen them. In other words, if we are dealing with some clean-air country village, the local conditions and circumstances are such that we should be very severe with anybody who emits dark smoke from his chimney, but when dealing with Sheffield, where there are a great many chimneys emitting dark smoke, our requirements are toned down. So that the phrase "where practicable" means a watering down, rather than a tightening up, of the measure, and it does not excite me at all.
Again, if, by "financial implications", is meant the total cost, not to any particular industry but to the community, there is no objection to the phrase. But again I imagine that it means primarily the financial implications to a particular industry. Therefore, in this definition of
644
"practicable", while I am glad that it stresses the importance of technical developments, I should much rather leave "local conditions and circumstances" and "financial implications" to be considered, as they are bound to be considered, "amongst other things."
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("to local conditions and circumstances, to the financial implications and").—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the right reverend Prelate has been a little pessimistic in his approach to the wording in the Bill, and I hope to satisfy him on the point. I promised the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, earlier this afternoon that I would refer to the law on the matter, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I indicate what it is. However, before doing that I should like to deal with one or two general points. The right reverend Prelate will remember that the word "practicable" occurs in several places in the Bill, and its definition has already been revised in the light of the discussions in the other place. The essence of the definition is that the word is to be construed as meaning not only what is physically practicable but what is reasonably practicable; and that, it is thought, must necessarily entail having regard to the local conditions and circumstances and the financial implications, amongst other things. I do not think the right reverend Prelate really is doubtful on that point although he dislikes the pinpointing of these two matters.
In these circumstances, it is right to look at the ancestry of the clause to see whether it has worked in the past. References both to "local conditions and circumstances" and to "cost" already occur in the corresponding definition in Section 110 (2) of the Public Health Act, 1936, which relates to the prevention of public health nuisances, including smoke nuisances. The words also appear in Model Clause 76, which relates to smoke from industrial furnaces, and in local Act provisions based on the Model Clause, including Section 36 (4) of the Manchester Corporation Act, 1946. With regard to the fear of the right reverend Prelate that the reference to "local conditions and circumstances" might be taken to mean that less stringent methods of prevention

645
would be required in a heavily polluted area than in an unpolluted one, the intention, of course, is exactly the reverse. It is intended, for example, that the requirements of Clause 17 should be less exacting if practical difficulties were encountered in the case of a colliery spoil-bank in a remote part of the country than in the case of a spoilbank on the edge of a built-up area. Having regard to the purpose of the relevant provisions of the Bill, it is not thought that any court would construe the words in the definition in the way that is apparently feared.
Perhaps I may now turn shortly to the way in which legal decisions have progressed. On consideration of the decisions, it is doubtful how far the Amendment which the right reverend Prelate has moved would have the result intended. In the first place, it is thought that a consideration of what is reasonably practicable includes not only a consideration of local conditions and circumstances and the financial implications, but also of all the relevant circumstances; and that is achieved here by the words "amongst other things". In the second place, on the analogy of the interpretation given to the expression by the courts, and particularly your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity, in recent cases on mines and factories legislation, it is probable that the courts would construe the expression as it is defined in the Bill—I say "probable", because I cannot say that it is certain. In older cases on smoke legislation in the middle of the 19th century it is apparent that the courts did not then require as high a standard of care in the execution of a duty which was to be carried out "as far as practicable" as has been called for in recent decisions in mines and factories cases. Accordingly, the Bill makes it clear beyond doubt that the gist of the modern decisions is followed in modern smoke legislation.
I hope I have made that somewhat technical point clear: that by the words one has tried to catch up the modern decisions and not the older decisions which took an easier and more relaxed view. The effect of the modern decisions is that "reasonably practicable" does not mean, as I said "physically possible"; that the court must look at the situation as it was immediately before
646
the breach of the obligation is alleged to have occurred—and, indeed, at all the surrounding circumstances; and from this it follows that it is not reasonably practicable to guard against a contingency which could not reasonably be foreseen. Among the factors which have to be considered are, first, the cost of the measures necessary for avoiding the risk or mischief, and the time and trouble involved in taking them; and secondly (and this is the one I would emphasise particularly to the right reverend Prelate), the seriousness of the risk or mischief to be provided against. In this connection it has been repeatedly stated that the greater the risk or the mischief the less weight will be given to the factor of cost. That may be some consolation to the right reverend Prelate in the fear which he has expressed. Thirdly, among the factors to be taken into account is the effectiveness of the measures which it is alleged ought to have been taken; and fourthly, the soundness of the system adopted.
Those precautions, which have worked successfully for a number of years, will normally be held to have shown quite plainly that the requirement is to do what is "reasonably practicable." I always hesitate to introduce these words when dealing with legal matters, because so much has been said to the contrary since, but I do not think it is putting it too high to say that all the courts have done is to apply some rules of common sense to the conception of what is reasonably practicable. It is impossible to give an exhaustive list of all the circumstances which may turn out to be relevant, but common sense will usually supply the answer. Therefore, I think that what we have done in seeking, as I have said, to catch up these modern conditions here, and not get back to the older ones by misadventure, will not have an adverse effect. I hope that my somewhat lengthy disquisition has been of some consolation to the right reverend Prelate and that he will not press his Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: I thank the Lord Chancellor for his disquisition. It does meet the anxiety I had in mind in putting down the Amendment, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in the definition of "smoke" to leave out "includes soot, ash, grit and gritty particles emitted in smoke" and insert—
"means emissions containing gas and airborne particles consisting essentially of carbonaceous material and includes soot, ash, grit and grit particles emitted in smoke."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to add some precision to the definition of the word "smoke", and it can be stated quite briefly. I understand that the Bill as drafted has a definition which is current practice in public health legislation, but I feel that it is by no means sufficiently precise. The need for some change now arises from the fact that for the first time smoke nuisance is to be measured in a precise quantity. Therefore, what we are going to measure must be precisely defined. This matter, of course, was clearly understood by the Beaver Committee when they made their general recommendations in their Report. They referred to what they meant by "smoke" in (I think) paragraph 94 of their Report. They stated quite definitely what they had in mind. I am given to understand that since then the British Standards Institution have been working on a definition based on the Beaver Committee's suggestion. Another reason why this is important is that the term "smoke" is often loosely used to include chemical fumes. It may well be that, in the administration of this Bill when it becomes on Act, those responsible for administering it, and even the courts, might find that they were attempting to deal with chemical fumes and not with smoke as defined by the Beaver Committee. That, I am sure, was not the intention of the Be er Committee, nor the intention of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the words I am moving to insert in place of the existing words will commend themselves to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 15, leave out ("includes soot, ash, grit and gritty particles emitted in smoke") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, as my noble friend quite rightly stated, proposes to make the
648
definition of "smoke" more comprehensive. I understand that for the purposes of this Bill, and for the purposes of many other Bills dealing with smoke in the past, it has never been decided to define the word "smoke" exhaustively. I understand that the reason for that is that it is thought that the ordinary meaning of the word "smoke" is generally well understood by everyone. As I say, it is not defined in existing legislation in a comprehensive manner, but that, I am told, has not caused any difficulty in the courts or to local authorities. Therefore there is perhaps a likelihood that any definition of the kind which my noble friend proposes in his Amendment might well prove a hindrance rather than a help, by giving rise to some unnecessary technical arguments about the composition or source of particles of matter which might be found in the air. It might well involve local authorities, and the courts as well, in difficulties of proof which would certainly not otherwise arise, and thus it might make the Bill more difficult to enforce.
My noble friend suggested in the course of his observations that perhaps a fuller definition is needed in order to make it clear whether or not certain chemical fumes or vapour are smoke for the purposes of the Bill. I understand that emissions of that kind cannot be "dark smoke" within the meaning of Clause 1. If that is so, and they were regarded as smoke at all, they would be affected only by Clause 15 of the Bill on the ground that they were causing a nuisance. On the other hand, nuisance is caused by an effluvia from any trade or manufacturing process, and can already be dealt with under the nuisance provision of the Public Health Act, 1936, which I have quoted in aid on more than one occasion this afternoon. In view of what I have said—that it has never been the policy of the Government to define smoke to any large extent, and that there is provision to deal with effluvia from trade or manufacturing process under the Public Health Act—I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am rather sorry at my noble friend's reply. He mentioned that the question of chemical fumes was already dealt with under another Act, which really lends strength to my Amendment. He also mentioned that it had

649
never been found necessary for the definition to be more precise. But what he did not mention, which I did in my original remarks, was that this is the first occasion when it has been, as a result of smoke nuisance, necessary to measure the smoke in precise terms. It is because of this innovation in this Bill that I wanted to have a more precise definition of what it was that was going to be measured.
The other question my noble friend posed was: Would it not be difficult for those who have the administration of this matter to find out exactly what was in the smoke? But, surely, the position would be that the onus of proof would be put upon the person making the smoke, and it would be up to him to show that the smoke which was coming out was not "smoke" as defined in the Act. I see quite clearly that my noble friend looks as though he is going to be adamant on this point. I regret it very much indeed, and I wonder whether he would perhaps give it further thought and we could come back to it again on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Let me assure my noble friend at once that I am adamant on nothing, and I am perfectly prepared, in order to purify the air, to consider this matter further.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that promise, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past six o'clock.