ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL. (Hansard, 13 December 1927)

§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
I beg to move to leave out from the word "be," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 6."
1.0 a.m.
I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to move this Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd). I can make the point which he wanted to make in a moment. It is regarding heavy traffic vehicles that unfortunately were not discussed in Committee upstairs in the absence of the hon. Member who was to move the Amendment. There is a great deal of anxiety among users of heavy industrial vehicles in regard to this Bill.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
Clause 6 refers to horse-drawn vehicles.

§ Mr. BROWN
I am referring entirely to horse-drawn, slow-moving vehicles. I may say that the Scottish Horse and Motor Tractors' Federation view the Bill with great anxiety and the union of the men, comprising some 12,000 workers, agrees with the employers that the passing of the Bill in its present form without some provision for these horse, slow-moving vehicles would be detrimental to the industry as a whole and risky to the drivers of vehicles. I may say for the convenience of the House that these employers and workers have had some experience of carrying out the lighting of these slow-moving vehicles over heavy granite setts and where children are very numerous. Hon. Members opposite laugh, but if they understood the conditions under which these vehicles are handled they would not laugh at all. The vehicles positively invite children to take rides, and the drivers are fined for not having 2277 lights according to the Regulations. It is a practical point of very great importance to many thousands of men not merely in Scotland but in England and Wales as well. These employers and workers have had experience in trying to obey similar Regulations in the war period, and it was found that the rear lights were constantly damaged in more than one way by children and by others. It was difficult to keep them alight, and in the case of springless vehicles of this kind it was impossible to keep them alight. The result was that cases went into Court and relations between employers and employed became very strained indeed. Thus it is that employers and employed are very much opposed to the Bill in the form in which it is going through. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the view of his Department about the matter and whether there is any intention on the part of the Government if Amendments are moved in another place to take a neutral view about it, so that if the question is fully discussed as it has not been fully discussed on Second Reading or upstairs, he will try to meet those who have to face these difficulties in the industry. In addition to the initial cost, there is the risk of prospective fines and the cost of renewals after damage, because these slow-moving vehicles are always in danger of damage, all of which throws a burden on the industry.

§ Sir F. MEYER
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Sir J. NALL
Is this Motion in order at this stage of the adjourned Debate on the Third Reading? Is it in order to move a Motion to recommit the Bill?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Yes, it is in order.

§ Mr. CRAWFURD
I desire in a few words to support the Motion and to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Ashley) and the House generally to a point which I raised when the Debate was initiated at the end of July. The point concerned the Amendment relating to agricultural vehicles. I would like to remind the House—

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
On a point of Order. As the hon. Member 2278 has spoken in the Third Reading Debate, can he speak again?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is a new question.

§ Mr. CRAWFURD
It is a point of importance in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early stages, said that this Bill might very likely settle the regulation of the lighting of road vehicles for the next 15 or 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in circulating his draft Traffic Bill, earlier in the year, laid down in the memorandum of that Bill that the minimum lighting requirements shall be two white lights and a red light showing in the rear. During the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was moved that vehicles engaged in agricultural occupations should have one white light. I submit that vehicles of that kind carrying only one light crossing roads or turning into roads are a very real danger to other vehicles coming from the near side. This is not a party matter. We are all anxious to make this Bill such as not to place hardships upon anybody and such as will make the roads reasonably safe not only to motorists but to pedestrians. I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having put the Motion which I have upon the Paper and I am glad that there will be an attempt made to effect a compromise, so that when the Bill reaches another place it will reduce the number and nature of the vehicles that are exempted from carrying two lights. There is one other matter. A letter has been sent from the Homegrown Timber Merchants' Association, who ask for consideration of the matter in regard to the placing of rear lights on wagons carrying timber. I am anxious to make the Bill better than it is.

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)
In the first place, may I say how much I appreciate the manner in which the two hon. Members for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) have put their points and in confining their remarks to a few words. They are in agreement with the Bill as a whole, and I think I may take it that that is the view of the House. May I deal with the hon. Member for Leith, who stated that he was informed by the Association of Owners of Heavy Vehicles that it would be difficult, and in 2279 their experience it had been difficult, to keep the rear lamp alight when passing over heavy atones or granite setts. I think the hon. Member will agree that you should not reject the Third Reading of the Bill for that reason. It is obviously a matter that can be discussed in another place. I have an open mind on the subject, because I have not heard the point until this very moment. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, I have a good deal of sympathy. It is quite true that in Committee a Clause was put in at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) that agricultural vehicles should only have one white light in front on the offside instead of two. That is the only point in the Bill that has been under discussion since the Report stage, and I personally do see the point. A Resolution by some Members on this side of the House stated that they would favour a compromise on the lines that when engaged on internal horse-drawn agricultural vehicles should only carry one white light, but when they went outside the farm operations they should come under the law which applies to all other vehicles. The Government have a perfectly open mind on the matter, and I have not much doubt that in another place the view, which I think is the general view of the House at the present time, will be considered. Having said that, may I appeal to the House to give this Bill the Third Reading. It is not a party Bill; it is a useful Bill, if for no other reason than that it does make it possible for cyclists to go along dark roads at night without the danger of being ridden down. It will save lives and will be a great boon to the man who is driving a motor car. We all know how difficult it is to pick out the cyclist at night. I ask that the Bill be now read the Third time.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.