HC Deb 28 June 1934 vol 291 cc1390-8

(1) It shall not be lawful to sell, offer for sale, or supply a motor vehicle or trailer for use on the road, if the use thereof on a road would be unlawful under sub-section (1) of section three of the principal Act.

(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, offered for sale, or supplied in contravention of this section any person who so sells, offers for sale, or supplies the same or causes or permits the same to be so sold, offered for sale or supplied, shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act. The expression "person" in this sub-section shall include a body corporate.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the bona fide sale, offer for sale, or supply of any motor vehicle or trailer for export from Great Britain.—[Major Lloyd George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.8 p.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I do not intend to take up the time of the House with a lengthy explanation why this Clause is moved. I think it sufficient to say that under the principal Act of 1930 regulations were made under Section 3 which created certain offences, and that one of those regulations was that every motor vehicle must have a silencer that reduced the noises of the exhaust as far as was reasonable. Contravention of that regulation rendered only the user liable to prosecution. The reason for the new Clause is that we wish to extend the provision to cover not only the user, but the manufacturer of the vehicle. I think there will be general agreement in the House that it is time something was done to minimise, and if possible remove altogether, what is becoming a very serious nuisance, and increasingly so from day to day. Another important reason for the Clause is that if you make regulations governing motor vehicles generally it is of importance to see that those regulations are effective, and there is no doubt that the regulations made with regard to silencers are quite ineffective. It is manifestly unfair that it should be the user alone who is to be punished for contravening a regulation. There are many cases in which the user of a motor vehicle is proceeded against and he says quite truthfully that the vehicle for the use of which he is prosecuted was in the condition in which he bought it from the manufacturer. It is grossly unfair that only the user should be proceeded against in that connection.

Some hon. Members may ask, Are these powers necessary? They may say that there are already powers existing under the principal Act, and they might ask whether it is not sufficient to proceed against the user under the Act of 1930. It will be obvious to everyone that if those powers had been effective we would not have the trouble that we have to-day. There is no doubt that in many cases magistrates are reluctant to punish the users of these vehicles when those users can show that their vehicles were in the condition in which they were bought from the manufacturer. If anyone doubts whether these powers are necessary, it is necessary only to listen in the streets and roads to realise that this nuisance is ever on the increase. Let me read an extract from the letter of a sales manager of one of the largest firms of manufacturers of accessories in this country. In a communication to the Press he stated: As a general sales manager of a firm which, among other activities, supplies silencers to three-quarters of the principal motor-car manufacturers in this country, I have daily proof that one section of the motoring public demands unnecessary noise. Neither the car manufacturers nor the makers of silencers can be blamed for supplying products which conform to this public demand. The silent sports car in the present state of motoring opinion is unsaleable. That is from the salesman of a firm which supplies three-quarters of the exhausts for the motor cars in this country. He says quite definitely that it does not pay, in many cases, to provide exhausts which are not noisy. That is sufficient proof that something ought to be done. We know that the Minister, while he sympathises with the object I have in view, does not think that it is practicable to do this in the way I have suggested. If it is not practicable to do it in this way it is very difficult to understand why the regulations were made in 1930. Those regulations are really not being observed at the present time. In the Standing Committee, when I moved this Amendment, the Minister pointed out the difficulties of working it. I thought he was a little hard put to it to find some of the difficulties which he mentioned. No one will convince me that the police do not know of the models which contravene the regulations. They are well known models. I am certain that if publicity were given to the fact that a certain make of motor car was considered by the Minister definitely to contravene the regulations under Section 3 of the principal Act, those models would not be made in future. The Minister suggested that I would like to have a factory search. I do not think that that is necessary. There is no need to go inside a factory. As a car came out of the factory one could hear that it definitely contravened the regulations. If the Minister's view were made public, as I suggest, I have no doubt that the manufacturers would cease to manufacture those cars. The Minister mentioned one difficulty, which I do not think will arise. He said during the Committee stage, in explaining how difficult this would be to work: I have already said I do not think you can make this Clause effective by simply finding an improper user of the car and then saying, As it has been improperly used, we think it probable it was in that condition when it left the works, and we will summon the manufacturer.' I do not think the Courts would ever convict."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 7th June, 1934; col. 499.] I do not think it would ever be necessary to search for individuals to that extent. I come back to the main point that if these models, which are issued only rarely in the course of the year, were definitely scheduled by the Minister as contravening the regulations, they would cease to be manufactured. At the present time some manufacturers are wilfully helping people to evade regulations made under an Act of Parliament. The reason is that they are not liable, when they make machines which contravene those regulations. I am informed that there is a definite premium on the manufacture of cars which contravene the regulations. If the user and the manufacturer were made equally liable, we should not be troubled with this appalling and growing nuisance.

I know that the Minister thinks that this would defeat the object which he has in mind, which is voluntary co-operation. He said upstairs that he wants voluntary co-operation in the study of problems with a view to finding a new solution. Obviously he wants to proceed against the user. I know that he is just as anxious as I am to get something done to stop a growing nuisance, but he thinks it can be done by voluntary cooperation. That is, of course, a better way of doing everything, but once this Bill is on the Statute Book, the Minister, if he has relied only on voluntary co-operation, will have no power to proceed against the manufacturer. If he wore armed with powers such as I suggest, I believe that he would find that the desire to co-operate would be increased astonishingly. If he had the power behind him, he could, if co-operation failed, enforce his power, and he would be astonished at the extent to which he would receive co-operation from what is, after all, only a very small section of manufacturers profiting by breaking the law.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. JANNER

I support the proposed new Clause. Anyone who has had experience in the courts of the country will realise that this is a matter of great importance from the point of view of the remedying of a terrible nuisance. It is reasonable to expect that if a person purchases a motor vehicle—I am speaking of a purchaser who is not out to break the law—he requires to be provided with a vehicle which complies in all its parts with the requirements of the, law. The average man is not fully conversant with all the rules and regulations relating to motor cars, and it is absurd to allow people who are manufacturing cars and motor cycles to produce something which can be used without alteration in such a manner as to break the law as, for example, by reason of the absence of an efficient silencer. One can purchase in certain cases instruments for reducing the noise, but that consideration does not appeal to some purchasers of cars or, more particularly, of motor cycles, when they are deliberately anxious to make a noise because they think they are doing something clever.

The peaceful and law-abiding citizen who is brought before a court is amazed to find that his excuse that he bought the vehicle believing that it complied with all the legal requirements is not valid, and that he can be charged with the commission of an offence, and that if the magistrates do forgive him for what he has done it is an act of grace on their part. There are other instances in which a man is entitled to plead as a correct defence for what might otherwise be an offence that the person from whom he purchased a commodity had supplied it direct from a certain source. In the case of a deficiency in butter fat in milk, if an accused can prove that there was no tampering with the milk from the time when it was taken from the cow to the time when he sold it, he has committed no offence. I think the Minister will agree that in the case of a car a similar reasonable answer that the car was used as it was bought should be a defence to a charge under this Measure. It is essential to reduce noise as much as possible.

We get enough of the various town and street noises which cannot be avoided, without suffering the discomfort of having added to them noises which can be prevented. In the constituency which I represent there is much noise of heavy traffic, and the general movement in the locality is sufficient disturbance for the people who live and who carry on their daily business there. One would think that the opportunity afforded to the Minister by this Clause to check the additional noise that is caused by vehicles which do not carry efficient silencers would be eagerly accepted. I do not think anyone would object to it. I do not think the manufacturers would object to it. It would prevent them from being practically pushed into producing something which they do not wish to produce. The general public would not object to it, because it would add to their comfort, as they would not be disturbed as they are at present by some of these vehicles. The people using the vehicles would also have no cause for complaint, because they would not be able to obtain something which was obnoxious and which they ought to realise would disturb the general public. In all the circumstances, I do not think there is anyone who would not willingly and gladly support either this particular Clause or something of a similar nature in order to get the existing grievances remedied.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I think I need hardly say that I have a very great deal of sympathy with what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in moving this Clause. Not only is it the general desire of all of us to eliminate unnecessary noise whenever that is possible, but one is struck by the unfairness of a position in which the user of a vehicle, which he may buy and not alter at all, is liable to be prosecuted, and not the seller of the vehicle. But the difficulty about this Clause, as I explained in Committee, is that its enforcement would be practically impossible. When my hon. and gallant Friend says that I was hard put to it to find arguments, I assure him that, if I had been hard put to it to find arguments, I should not have used them at all, because I am as anxious as he is to see this thing done, and, if I were to try to find specious reasons why it should not be done, I should be guilty of great insincerity.

When my hon. and gallant Friend was quoting ways in which such a provision could be enforced, every instance that he quoted was an instance of the use of a car by someone, and in such cases a prosecution is possible even as the law stands now. My hon. and gallant Friend says that one can wait outside the factory gate, and, if a car comes out which makes a noise, one can prosecute; but I can do that to-day, because the car is being used by someone, and the person who uses it can be prosecuted. I do not, however, conceal the fact that I do not regard the present provisions as satisfactory, even as regards the user of the car, and I am sure that anyone who has any experience of police courts knows the extreme difficulty of getting a conviction under the present regulations. At the present moment I am in consultation with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Physical Laboratory on the scientific aspect of the question of silencing motor cars, in order to see whether it would not be possible, as a result of investigation, to make regulations dealing with the user which are more precise and easier to apply. My hon. and gallant Friend says that the general knowledge that a particular car is likely to contravene the regulations will stop manufacturers putting it on the market, but that general knowledge is acquired however the prosecution is brought.

Further, as I told the Committee, I am in consultation with the Society of Motor Manufacturers with the object of trying to see if I cannot get voluntary co-operation in stopping what is really of no use to them. The vast majority of them do not want it, and, if they do it, it is only because they are forced to do it. One or two manufacturers have set the fashion, there is a demand among a certain section of the population for a noisy car, and the fact that one or two people cater for that demand gradually forces the others to compete. I say quite frankly to the House that I am not so far entirely satisfied with the response that has been made. I am not asking them to cooperate with me with the idea that, if I cannot get that co-operation, nothing is going to be done at all. I am asking them to co-operate with me because I think that voluntary effort is the best. If I cannot get that voluntary effort and co-operation, I shall have to turn to other methods. I do not think that, if and when I have to abandon any idea of a voluntary arrangement, the particular scheme set out in this Clause is the one that I should adopt. I have in my mind a machinery which I think would be very much more effctive.

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken when he says that the passage of this Clause would create among the manufacturers a much greater readiness to co-operate with me. I think that exactly the opposite would be the case. They would know as well as I do that this Clause as drafted would be on the Statute Book as a dead letter, and their feeling, I think, would be—I am not speaking of manufacturers as a whole, but of those few whose co-operation is denied to me—that Parliament had shot its bolt, that it had put on the Statute Book what it meant to do about this matter, that the Clause was one which could be easily avoided, and that, therefore, any real danger of enforcement by statute had disappeared and the need for co-operation had gone. I think, therefore, that the effect of passing the Clause would be the exact opposite of what my hon. and gallant Friend desires. But I can give the House the assurance that, although I prefer voluntary measures for dealing with the problem, I intend to see that the problem is dealt with somehow; and, although I am prepared to give reasonable opportunities for the manufacturers to cooperate with me, as soon as I am satisfied that there is no chance of receiving that co-operation, which I myself think is the preferable method, I shall not hesitate in obtaining the necessary powers to enforce this matter in what I consider to be a really practical manner.

8.33 p.m.

Mrs. TATE

I must admit that I think the Minister's reply has been of a very disappointing nature. He says that he has every possible sympathy with the intention of the Clause, but the first reason that he gave for not accepting it was that it would be difficult of enforcement. That, I think, is a very remark able reason when we consider that we are going to be asked shortly to pass a Clause to enforce a 30-mile speed limit over miles of this country, which I maintain will be quite impossible of enforcement. Therefore, I think that that argument is a very strange one for the Minister to put forward. In the second place, he said that he intended to consult with motor manufacturing experts. Personally, I think that, if it became the law that motors were not to be sold which were of an undesirable type, the manufacturers would instantly find means of manufacturing the right kind of car. I believe that the industry itself is far more likely to he led to produce the article which it ought to produce by making it the law than by any amount of consultation. Since the Minister has expressed his sympathy with the Clause, although at the same time he has expressed his disapproval of the exact manner in which it is drafted, I think it is a great pity that he himself did not at least move to insert a Clause having this object in a Bill which otherwise has so very little to recommend it.

Major LLOYD GEORGE

In view of the Minister's assurance, for which I thank him, that he will try voluntary cooperation first and that, if that fails, he is determined to get something done—I know that the object that he has in mind is exactly the same as mine—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.