HC Deb 31 May 1956 vol 553 cc543-9
Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the beginning to insert "subsections (1) and (4) of".

I think that it might be convenient if I gave a short explanation of the Amendments that we are proposing to this Clause, although some of them subsequently will be moved and explained separately.

This is the first of a series of nine small Amendments designed to deal with certain points arising out of the application by this Clause to cyclists of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with reckless and dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. This Amendment is the first of those relating to the application of Section 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), in the Standing Committee, moved an Amendment which had the effect of introducing subsection (1, c), which makes the provisions of Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, apply to cyclists. I accepted that Amendment in principle, but I indicated that, at a later stage, the Government would propose Amendments for the purpose of securing that the provisions of Section 15, which deal with motorists who attempt to drive or are in charge of motor vehicles while under the influence of drink and so on, should not apply to cyclists.

The present Amendment modifies the application of Section 15 in certain respects. At present, the Clause applies the whole of Section 15 to pedal cyclists. Two of the subsections of Section 15 are, however, inappropriate. First, Section 15 (2) deals with disqualification from driving. Obviously that has no application in the case of pedal cyclists. Secondly, Section 15 (3) provides that persons charged under Section 15 shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, with the offence of being drunk while in charge of a carriage. As is generally known, Section I2 of the 1872 Act has been held to apply to cyclists, and it should continue so to apply, since in the case of cyclists there will be no alternative provisions in the Road Traffic Act making it an offence for them to be drunk in charge of a cycle, such as there is for motorists under Section 15 of the 1930 Act, and as there will be under Clause 8 of the present Bill, when it becomes law.

9.0 p.m.

The remaining subsections of Section 15 of the Act of 1930—subsections (1) and (4)—deal respectively with the definition of the offences and the power to arrest without warrant. Subsection (4) should apply as it stands. Subsection (1) is applicable so far as the riding of a bicycle while drunk is concerned.

With that explanation, I hope that the House will be disposed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Page

Is it your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we should discuss the next Amendment at the same time, as my right hon. Friend referred to the set of Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If that meets the convenience of the House.

Mr. Molson

I intend to move the next Amendment separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendments will all have to be moved separately. Does the hon. Member mean that next Amendment would be discussed separately?

Mr. Page

I want to ask a question on the next Amendment, but if my right hon. Friend intends to move it separately, I will wait until then.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Each Amendment must be moved separately.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end to insert but with the omission of the reference to attempting to drive". Section 15 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, I930, defines three offences in relation to motor vehicles—namely, driving, attemping to drive and being in charge. It is now proposed to apply only the first of these offences to pedal cyclists. Where a person is only attempting to ride or is merely in charge of a pedal cycle, it is not necessary to apply the heavier penalties available for the act of riding the cycle. In such circumstances, the person attempting to ride or being in charge can, if necessary, be prosecuted under Section I2 of the Licensing Act. 1872, which provides a maximum penalty of 40s. or imprisonment for one month.

This Amendment omits the reference in Section 15 to attempting to drive, the reference to being in charge having been deleted from the Section consequentially on Clause 8.

Mr. Page

I should have thought that the omission of these words defeated the whole purpose of the subsection. As it would stand, with these words omitted, one would be able to charge the cyclist only if he were cycling—if he were successfully riding his cycle. The last thing he would be doing if he were drunk would be successfully riding his cycle. Surely the only occasion on which one would need to charge him under the Clause is where he was attempting to drive or attempting to ride his cycle. I object to leaving out those very words which it seems to me create the offence which we were intending to introduce in this Clause against the cyclists.

Mr. Molson

If I may reply, with the leave of the House, it has been decided by the courts in Corkery v. Carpenter that a cyclist who was driving, in charge of a cycle, or attempting to ride it on a highway or in a public place committed an offence under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872. It seems to me that that is an adequate provision for dealing with that case. I think it would be inappropriate, under the new Clause with the heavier penalties, to deal with any one attempting to ride a cycle.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the penalties are in the two separate cases?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, to leave out from beginning to "and" in line 19.

The effect of this Amendment is to remove subsection (1, f) from the Clause. It is consequential on a further Government Amendment in page 8, line 28. Subsection (1, f) as it stands applies the provisions of Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to pedal cyclists. This would have made it possible for a pedal cyclist charged with manslaughter to be convicted alternatively of an offence under Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, of reckless or dangerous driving if, on the evidence, the jury considered that he was guilty of reckless or dangerous driving. This provision is no longer appropriate.

The further Government Amendment is based on the view that procedure by way of indictment is too weighty machinery for the type of offence contemplated by this Clause, for which reason it is proposed that the use of indictment should be deleted. If that be right for the ordinary charge of dangerous riding, it must be right for the charge of dangerous riding when it is alternative to the charge of manslaughter and therefore subsection (1, f) of the Clause should be deleted. A pedal cyclist who gets off a charge of manslaughter could, if the police thought fit, be summoned to be dealt with by the magistrates for dangerous riding. This does not need any statutory provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, in page 8. line 28, at the beginning to insert:

"A person shall not be liable to be indicted by virtue of this section, and".

My right hon. Friend has already given a full background to this group of Amendments. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement our view that indictment is too heavy a penalty for the type of offence envisaged against pedal cyclists in this Clause. It is considered that summary procedure will be sufficient; and the object of the Amendment and the two Amendments which follow is to delete the reference to indictment.

Mr. Ede

"Indictment" is not a penalty. An indictment is merely a procedural point in the application of the law. What happens is that occasionally if a person be indicted he receives a heavier penalty than if he had been proceeded against by summary conviction. The learned Attorney-General has made the traditional defence of the jury system and the right of people to be tried by a jury. Does not that apply also to the cyclist? Is he not as much one of "God's children" as the motorist?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, to leave out "or twelve" and insert "twelve or fifteen".

It is necessary, in order to prescribe penalties under this Clause, to make reference to line 30 in Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and this Amendment effects that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deedes

I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "summary".

This is consequential to the Amendment in line 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, after "eleven", to insert "or fifteen".

It is necessary to prescribe penalties for the offence which is created, and the Amendment achieves that. The penalties proposed are the same as for reckless or dangerous driving of a pedal cycle namely, a fine not exceeding £30 on the first conviction and a fine not exceeding £30 or three months' imprisonment on a subsequent conviction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out paragraph (b).

This is a consequential Amendment which removes the application to pedal cyclists of the procedure of indictment. Despite what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says, the Govern- ment view is that the procedure on indictment is too weighty for the type of offence provided for in the Clause.

Mr. Ede

I wonder if the right hon Gentleman could help with regard to the question I recently put to the Joint Under-Secretaryof State for the Home Department. Why is the cyclist not to be given the right to go before a jury, if he wishes?

Mr. Molson

I tried to give the right hon. Gentleman the Government's view upon the subject. There are not very heavy penaltles imposed for this offence. Although we agree that it is a sufficiently serious offence to be punishable, we think that it should be dealt with summarily and not on indictment.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Can the Parliamentary Secretary now answer the question which I put? What are the penalties in the respective cases we have been discussing?

Mr. Molson

I have just read out what the penalty is under the Clause. I regret that at the moment I cannot refer to the Act of 1872 and indicate exactly what the penalties are under that Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, to leave out "or twelve" and insert "twelve or fifteen".

For the purpose of determining what properly amounts to a second or subsequent convictions for offences under Sections 11, 12 and 15 it is, we think, desirable to keep motor and cycling offences separate. The Clause already provides for this in relation to offences under Sections 11 and 12. The Amendment achieves the same thing in relation to offences under Section 15.

Were it not for the Amendment, a motorist convicted under Section 15 might find himself being treated by the court as though his conviction were a second one, merely because he had previously been convicted under that Section of riding a bicycle while under the influence of drink. Conversely, the conviction of a cyclist under Section 15 might be taken as a second conviction if he had previously been convicted as a drunken motorist. We feel that that would be wrong. The purpose of the Amendment is to keep the two offences in separate categories.

Amendment agreed to.