HC Deb 10 July 1930 vol 241 cc699-713
Major HILLS

I bog to move, in page 22, line 24, after the word "animal," to insert the words: or to any other property on the road, or on the land adjoining the road. This Clause imposes on the motorist the obligation of stopping in case of accident. The motorist can be required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring him. The motorist has also to stop in the event of an accident to an animal, and the word "animal" is defined as meaning "any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog." I wish to include any other property on the road or the land adjoining the road, and I ask the House to bear in mind the very limited nature of the obligation which I seek to impose on the motorist. As the Clause stands, if an accident is caused to any person, vehicle or animal as the result of a motor vehicle being on the road, certain obligations are imposed on the driver of the motor vehicle. He has to stop and give his name and address, or, if no one is there, he has to report the accident at the nearest police station. That is not a very onerous obligation. I quite agree that where there is damage to a person or to a domestic animal as defined in the Clause the motorist ought to be compelled to stop, but also in cases where damage to property occurs. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend the ex-Minister of Transport gave instances of damage which was done to his own property in this way by persons against whom no remedy at all could be obtained. I think this is a case in which the Minister might fairly meet us.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

I wish to support the Amendment. I was responsible for a similar Amendment in the Committee and it was strongly supported by hon. Members above the Gangway. I am certain that anyone who considers the point will realise the importance of the Amendment. The matter has been forced upon my attention by the fact that considerable damage is repeatedly done at a corner on a particular road in my constituency. A wall there has been knocked down three or four times within the last six or seven years, and I think there ought to be an obligation on the driver of any motor vehicle which causes damage to property on the roadside to report the occurrence at once. Unless this is done, in a very large number of cases motorists will escape liability where it is clear that the damage has been due to negligent driving. Although the Minister could not see his way in Committee to accept this Amendment, I hope that by this time he has realised that it is a reasonable Amendment and that he is now prepared to include it in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I notice that in this Amendment the word "property" is used and in a subsequent Amendment on the Paper dealing with this same part of the Clause the word "cat" occurs. As I wish to guard myself before speaking on this matter, I would like to know if a cat can be termed "property"?

Mr. SPEAKER

I understand that the cat has already had nine lives.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

How is the cat to warn the approaching motorist when it has only one life in hand?

Colonel ASHLEY

I press the Government to consider this Amendment more favourably. The Clause provides that where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road, damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle or animal, a certain obligation is laid upon the driver of the motor vehicle, and surely it is logical that we should also impose that obligation where damage is done to any other property on the road or the land adjoining the road. What we want to do is to try to make those responsible for damage of this kind, wilful or otherwise, compensate the person who is injured or whose property is injured. In Committee upstairs I mentioned the fact that I myself suffered continuously from this sort of damage, and that, practically, I had not been able on any occasion to get any redress at all. There is a sharp turn near my lodge gates, and heavy lorries often come along there at 30 or 40 miles an hour without paying much attention to the turn. Sometimes they find that they cannot negotiate it, and about once in every six weeks a wall is knocked down. It is not very pleasant to have to rebuild the wall constantly, but, above all, I feel that there should be some way of bringing these people to book, whether it is a case of my own wall or anybody else's wall. Since the Government have embodied in the Bill a Clause dealing with certain aspects of this matter, I would press upon them to consider this Amendment and to extend the obligation to cover damage to property, many cases of which occur from time to time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

If I show what the effect of this Amendment would be if it were carried, I do not think that there will be very much difference between us that it is an unnecessary and somewhat fencing kind of Amendment to put forward. We shall all agree that it is undesirable to multiply penal offences, particularly of a kind which are likely to be disregarded. Can it be supposed for a moment that anybody who happens to run over somebody's property—it may be a tin-can or a horseshoe, or anything on the road—will stop and report it to a police officer, or go along to the police station and say, "I am very sorry, but I ran over something Which was lying in the road"? It is not likely, and it is not a good thing or desirable policy to make offences which are likely to be considered in a light manner. It was the serious argument which was put forward in regard to the speed limit, that we had a limit which people disregarded. It was such a potent argument that the House accepted that point of view.

It would be equally undesirable to make some new kind of offence that, if you run over something in the road, you have to stop. If we look at the practical side of it, there is a very good working distinction between damage or injury that you may inflict to a human being or to an animal, and damage of a serious kind that you may inflict on some property. If you run into some sort of inanimate property on the road, such as a post or a gate, you will probably be brought to a standstill. That is a very good working reason why it is not necessary to make it a criminal offence if you do not stop. In the case of a person, you may seriously injure the person, and if you drive away, serious results may happen to that person. I suggest that we have really arrived at a reasonable and sensible solution of the difficulty with which we want to deal. It is quite sufficient to impose the obligation to stop in the case of injury to a human being or animal. It is carrying it a little wide to say that if you damage any other property on the road or on land adjoining the road you should be subjected to criminal proceedings if you do not stop.

Mr. G. GIBSON

I am not very keen on the whole of this Amendment, but I suggest that the Solicitor-General might accept the word "property." The word "vehicle" is included in the Clause, and why should not the word "property" be included as well? On Monday a friend of mine told me that he was called out on Sunday night to some stores in Leeds, and he found that three or four windows had been broken. He had no evidence as to how they had been broken and the property damaged, apart from the fact that in the basement was found a motor cycle lamp, and that an out-of-work man, standing on the side of the road, came across and gave the owner of the property, who was my friend, the number of a motor cycle and sidecar. He has witnessed the accident, and the man was brought to book. But why should that motor cyclist not be included in this Clause? He knew that he had damaged property and went away without giving the owner any opportunity of recovering the loss which he had sustained.

Major LLEWELLIN

I am sorry to take a different view from others on this side, but there clearly must be a distinction between civil actions and criminal actions. Of course, there are hard cases Where people have their property at the side of the road run into, and cannot get sufficient redress because they may not have had a witness on the spot. When, however, we are creating a new criminal offence, it must be laid down in definite terms what that offence is to be. If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that if any car ran into a bank at the side of the road, and took a piece off that bank, and if the driver did not go to the nearest police station, he would be liable to be summoned for an offence. The result would be that a large number of people would know that they were breaking the law, but they would say that it was too absurd for words to go to the police station. We should be in the same position as we were with regard to the speed limit, when everybody knew that everybody else was breaking the law when driving over 20 miles an hour, and were only convicted when some particular police-trap happened to catch them doing about 30. We are creating a new criminal offence in this Clause, and it is sufficient to go as far as the Government have proposed going in the Clause as it stands. I should not like to see that offence taken any further, because I am certain that an extension will not be supported by the people at large. We should get people breaking the law, and thinking it quite an ordinary thing to do so.

Sir HERBERT NIELD

I disagree entirely with the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin). I am a victim, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), for I am constantly having motorists, who are beguiled into the wide avenue in which I live, coming down at a reckless pace, and when opposite my premises, finding they have made a mistake. They then proceed to back in order to turn, and back into my fence, destroying it. I have no remedy, for I do not know who has done it, and I have to send for the blacksmith in order to repair it, and foot the bill. I do not want to make more criminal offences, for I have enough to do in trying those who break them, but there should be an obligation on a driver who does damage of that sort to announce the fact and give his name and address.

Major GLYN

I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not go to a Division on the wording of this Amendment, because it is extremely wide, and we should put ourselves in a ridiculous position if it were passed. The Bill as drawn is right in protecting life and limb, but under this Amendment, if you scrape a bank, you would, technically speaking, have to stop at a police station and say that you had damaged it. If damage to a wall is perpetually being done, the remedy is to point out to the road surveyor that he should improve the road. If one lives at a dangerous corner, the remedy is to improve the permanent way.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to highway authorities to authorise on specified highways carriage of greater weights.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 23, line 24, to leave out the word "may."

I will explain the purport of this and the following series of Amendments to this Clause which are down in my name. They are directed to two main objects: to provide that a bridge authority, for example, a railway or canal company, can grant a permit for the use of a bridge maintained by them by a vehicle carrying an exceptional load, and to make it clear that conditions may be attached to the grant of a permit either by a highway authority or by a bridge authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 25, after the word "responsible," insert the words: and a bridge authority as regards any bridge for the maintenance of which they are responsible may subject to such conditions as they think fit.

In line 28, after the word "road," insert the words "or bridge."

In line 34, after the word "not," insert the words: so long as the conditions, if any, attached to the permit are complied with.

In line 36, after the word "road," insert the words "or bridge."

In line 38, at the end, insert the words: Provided that where a highway authority are responsible for the maintenance of a road passing over a bridge but not for the maintenance of the bridge itself the power conferred by this section shall be exerciseable by the bridge authority and not by the highway authority. (2) In this section the expression 'highway authority' includes any person responsible for the maintenance of a road."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 24, line 3, to leave out the word "either," and to insert instead thereof the words:

  1. "(a) to carry a heavy locomotive; or
  2. (b) to carry a light locomotive; or"
This is the first of a series of Amendments to this Clause which have been put down in order that the restrictive notices to be placed on bridges may provide for a restriction in respect of heavy locomotives alone, or of heavy locomotives and light locomotives. A heavy locomotive with the trailers drawn by it might amount to a total load of from 40 to 60 tons, and under the Clause as it appears in the Bill, it would have been open to the bridge authority to put a notice on the bridge to the effect that the bridge was incapable of carrying a load exceeding, say, 40 tons. A notice of this kind, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (4), would have had the ridiculous effect of preventing two heavy motor cars of a laden weight of, perhaps, five tons each, from being on the bridge at the same time. It has, therefore, been thought desirable to throw the Clause into such a form that the notices placed on the bridge by the bridge authority might relate to heavy locomotives and light locomotives as suggested, and otherwise to restrict the maximum limiting weight to be put on the notice to the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor car drawing a trailer. This limitation is provided for in the Government Amendment—In page 24, line 18, at the end, to insert the words: and shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer.

Major GLYN

I regret that the Minister has not left the Clause as it was in Committee. I am advised, on behalf of the railway companies, that the effect of the Amendments is that the railway companies' engineers will not be sure whether any of the bridges passing over railways will be standing when trains go underneath, and the only object of having these notices is that the railway engineers are held responsible—and quite rightly—that they are in good order for a certain weight. The difficulty we are in now is that as the law has been made it will be quite impossible for the railway companies to be sure that some of these structures may not have to withstand a weight which they are incapable of supporting. It would be a very serious thing, indeed, for main line traffic if some person should drive vehicles of a weight which, as the Minister himself says, may be up to 40 or 50 tons, over a bridge incapable of carrying that weight. We regarded the Clause as it left the Committee as altogether satisfactory. We are now informed that this change is really made because it would be ridiculous for the railway companies to put up a notice which would limit the traffic to two vehicles of five tons apiece being on the bridge at the same time. The statutory limit for a Toad vehicle is, I understand, 22 tons to-day, and the Amendment the Minister is moving would introduce into the Clause a Section which would read: Shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor car drawing a trailer. It will be very difficult for all bridges over railways to be protected unless we can lay down this one simple rule, that the engineers shall be allowed to put up a notice on each bridge as to the weight which it can carry. That is the only safe way of dealing with the matter, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it and perhaps be willing to receive representations from technical authorities. We attach the greatest importance to this point, because if an express train travelling at high speed were wrecked through a bridge having been broken down by an excessive weight passing over it, the railway company would have to be responsible at the inquiry which would take place by the Ministry of Transport. We shall not be able, under the altered Clause, to retain the arrangement made upstairs in Committee, which was considered to be altogether satisfactory. We attach the greatest importance to the Clause being left as the Committee left it.

Colonel ASHLEY

After the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend we ought to hear something more from the Minister about this proposal. It is almost impossible to piece together this series of Amendments to see what they mean as a whole. We have to take it from the Minister that the highway authority may, in certain circumstances, allow heavy vehicles to go over a bridge which was not built to carry vehicles of that weight. As I understand the law as it is at the present moment, the owners of bridges over canals or railways are only liable to keep them in repair so as to carry the weight of traffic which existed when the bridges were built. The vast majority of railway and canal bridges were built to carry only, perhaps, 5 or 10 tons, whereas a modern lorry may weigh up to 25 or 30 tons. I had always understood that what was being done under this Bill was not going to make any difference in this respect. The notice to be put up on the bridge should state that the vehicles passing over it must not exceed a certain weight, which would conform to the weight of the traffic which was allowed to go over the bridge when it was built. Now I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend that under the Amendment and under the Clause these elementary precautions are done away with, and that a bridge built to carry 5 or 10 tons may have some 20 tons sent over it. That opens up dangerous possibilities, not only for the railways but also for users of the road, and if the Minister is not prepared to deal with the matter now—and I quite understand that in a complicated matter of this sort that may not be possible—I hope he will receive a deputation introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the case then made out before him is a good one we can deal with the matter in another place. I expect it is a good case, because my hon. and gallant Friend always moves sensible Amendments.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I am definitely advised that the rights and responsibilities of the railway companies are fully safeguarded under the Clause as it will be when amended. They will be able to prohibit heavy locomotives, light locomotives or vehicles of any weight above five tons going over the bridges. I believe that is so now, and I am advised that this does not alter the situation; and if that is so I cannot see that the railway companies' interest are interfered with. But the railway companies have very able legal advisers, and if they care to communicate with me upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member I will gladly look into their points. If there is anything in their points, I should wish to meet them, and any injustice could be put right in another place.

Major GLYN

May I read one sentence from a statement by the chief legal adviser in charge of all the railway business? Thus a railway company may find itself in the serious position of being unable to prohibit traffic known to be dangerous to the structure of a bridge from passing over that bridge, with the result that the railway and the users thereof will be exposed to the most serious danger.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 13, leave out the word "either," and insert instead thereof the words:

  1. "(a) by a heavy locomotive; or
  2. (b) by a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive; or
  3. (c)"

In line 18, at the end, insert the words: and shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer.

In line 35, leave out from the word "weight" to the word "means" in line 37.

In line 38, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "of."

In page 25, line 2, leave out the words "not be taken to be," and insert instead thereof the words "be taken not to be."

In line 34, leave out the words "the expense."

In line 36, after the word "aforesaid," insert the words "the expenses incurred by him in so doing."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, to leave out the words "by him."

These words ought to be omitted, as the appeal may have been considered by an arbitrator instead of by the Minister under the provisions of Sub-section (6).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Weighing of motor vehicles, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 26, line 33, leave out the second word "motor."

In line 39, leave out the words "or a trailer."

In line 44, leave out the words "or trailer.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Colonel ASHLEY

I beg to move, in page 27, line 2, at the end, to insert the words: Provided further that the owner of a vehicle shall not be liable for any damage done to the weighbridge owing to such weighing. Under this Clause a local authority can compel the driver of one of these heavy goods vehicles to go to a weighbridge to have it weighed in order to see that it conforms to the law. This Amendment seeks to protect the owner and driver of the vehicle from being responsible for damage if by any chance the weighbridge is broken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

So far as I can see, these words are really unnecessary. I canot myself see how any liability could attach to a person who was acting under the fiat of an authority which he could not resist. However, to make sure that no injustice is done I will promise the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point further, and if there does appear to be any fear of injustice we will take steps to see that the position is put right.

Colonel ASHLEY

On the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 27, line 20, after the word "maintaining," insert the words "weighbridges or other."

In line 21, leave out the word "motor."

In line 21, leave out the words "and trailers."

In line 23, after the word "such," insert the words "weighbridge or other."

In line 31, after the word "such," insert the words "weighbridge or other."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 28.—(Taking motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence.)

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 28, line 21, after the word "committed" to insert the words "or attempting to commit."

This Clause deals with the offence of taking a motor car without the owner's consent, and the Amendment is introduced to enable a constable to arrest anyone without a warrant who is reasonably suspected by him of attempting to commit the offence under this Clause, as well as giving him power of arresting a person suspected by him of having committed such offence. If a constable waits until an offence has been committed the opportunity of arresting the man will have passed—unless he happens to be one of our new mobile police.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Restrictions on persons being towed by getting on to or tampering with motor vehicles.)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 23, leave out the word "with."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 28, line 26, to leave out "or (b)," and to insert instead thereof the words: he shall be liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. (2) If. This Amendment and the Amendment which follows relate to the same offence. It was decided in Committee that the offence under paragraph (a), which is the offence of taking hold of or getting on to a motor vehicle or trailer for the purpose of being drawn or carried, was a minor offence and that a smaller maximum penalty ought to be attached to it than to the offence under paragraph (b), which relates to tampering with the brake or other part of the mechanism of a motor vehicle while that vehicle is on the road. This was one of the numerous concessions that I made to the Opposition.

Colonel ASHLEY

And to justice.

Mr. MORRISON

And to justice. The insertion of this Amendment has rendered necessary the re-drafting of the Clause in order to separate two offences to which different maximum penalties are attached.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 27, after the word "road," insert the words: any person otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to the next Amendment—in page 28, line 27, after the word "road," insert the words "or on a parking place provided by a local authority"—I am not quite sure whether it is already covered in the Bill. If it is not covered, I will allow the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) to move it.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES

I beg to move, in page 28, line 27, after the word "road," to insert the words "or on a parking place provided by a local authority."

I understand that the Minister of Transport is inclined to accept this Amendment. In the definition of "road," it is obvious that the definition Clause would not cover a parking place provided by a local authority, unless that parking place formed part of a public highway. In the interpretation Clause it is stated that 'Road' means any public highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes: It is obvious that in the case of a parking place provided by a local authority the owner of a motor vehicle ought to have the same protection as he would get where it is on a public highway, and if someone gets on to the vehicle and tampers with part of the machinery.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I accept the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN

I am not certain that we should pass this Amendment so quickly. I do not know whether the words "otherwise than with lawful authority or reasonable cause" will meet the case which I have in mind. Supposing a man has to touch another car in a parking place in order to get his own car out. I suppose that would be "reasonable cause." Otherwise, under this Amendment, especially in a local parking place where there are no attend- ants, you might have a man committing a criminal offence if he touches a car in order to get out his own car, which happens to be behind it. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could inform the House that that would probably come within the expression "reasonable cause."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, leave out lines 31 to 35 inclusive.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Regulations.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 14, leave out the words "as to the," and insert instead thereof the words, "the maximum."

In line 16, leave out the words "as to."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 29, line 32, to leave out the words "whether on a road or elsewhere" and to insert instead thereof the words: either on a road or subject to the consent of the owner of the premises on any premises where the vehicle is. The Amendment as I have moved it is in a form somewhat different from the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 29, line 42, leave out from the word "order" to the end of paragraph (h).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, after the word "Britain," to insert the words: and for dispensing, in the case of any such persons, with the requirements of Section five of this Act. This Amendment is to enable the Minister to dispense with a declaration as to physical fitness on the part of persons coming into Great Britain from abroad with an International Travelling Permit, in accordance with the International Convention which exists between various Governments. The International Travelling Permit is only obtained after a driving test in the country of origin. It confers a right under an International Convention on the holder to drive a motor vehicle in the country for which it is issued, and it is therefore necessary that the Minister should be able to dispense with any other formalities as regards the holders of such International Permits. The Convention is reciprocal and similar privileges are given to British subjects in other countries.

Amendment agreed to.