HC Deb 31 May 1956 vol 553 cc569-73
Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 36, line 47, to leave out sub-paragraph (1).

This Amendment is necessary to implement the decision taken not to increase the penalties for exceeding the speed limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 6, leave out "said Act" and insert "Act of 1930".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 37, line 42, at the end to insert: 6. In section eleven of the Act of 1930, in subsection (4) (which relates to the disqualification of persons aiding or abetting offences under that section), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the 'words "then unless" and after the word "deemed" there shall be inserted the word "not". This Amendment is proposed in consequence of the Government new Clause dealing with offences against Section 35 of the Act of 1930. It is a drafting and clarification in order to place beyond doubt the discretion of the court.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs

I beg to move, in page 38. line 3, at the end to insert: or damage is caused to any notice, refuge, light, beacon or other object placed on or near a highway for the purpose of securing road safety, regulating road traffic or facilitating the passage of pedestrians". Apparently this Amendment is the last of the "non-drafters". I submit the Amendment to the House although I have had a very useful letter from the Parliamentary Secretary explaining the Government point of view. Every motorist from time to time comes across a refuge which has been broken down, a signpost which has been knocked over, or a beacon which has been displaced. Those of us who travel a good deal at night, as those of us do who attend the House—except those who do not stay too late—often find that a beacon is unlit because of some damage which has been caused. It seems to me that the motorist responsible should at least be called upon to stop and to report that he has done the damage. If he knows a dog over or injures a dog he has to report; but he can damage a sign which might cause danger to other road users and not be called upon to report.

In addition, according to the Bill, these motorists are interfering with the rights of the highway authorities, because, according to one Clause we have dealt with, it is the responsibility of highway authorities to secure the removal of signs. These motorists are doing it for them.

In this case, it is not just a question of damage to property. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point made earlier, that this Amendment seems to differentiate between one kind of property and another. Most people put up with their gates being damaged by a motorist reversing into their driveway, damaging the gates and then driving off. That is personal, private property, and neither this nor any other Bill gives them any redress. But in this case signs concerned with public safety are involved. I do not think it is unnecessarily unreasonable to call upon a motorist who does damage a sign put up for the safety of people using the roads, and for pedestrians, at least to report that damage to the police station.

I therefore beg to move the Amendment, and I hope that even at this late stage we may find we can have some accommodation upon it.

Mr. Deedes

I think that in the earlier proceedings my predecessor gave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) an undertaking that this matter should be looked into. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, by itself, is in no way objectionable, but there is this to be said about it—which I am not sure he has appreciated—that it involves the selection, for reporting purposes, of damage to a particular kind of public property. It involves the selection of one piece of public property, and it would not be very easy, if this Amendment were accepted, to resist the claim that similar arrangements ought to apply to other types of public property, and even to private property. The selection of this particular piece of property would undoubtedly lead to that demand.

The second and perhaps even more important objection is this. The routine of recording and reporting on road accidents, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, already imposes a fairly heavy burden upon the police. We are unwilling to add to this burden in any particular, unless there are the most cogent reasons for so doing.

I do not think that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to provide much information of great value bearing upon road safety. Of course, the more information we can get about road accidents, the better; but we have to weigh the quantity of information we get, and the value of it, against the over-loading of the police with minor and perhaps less important duties than some others for which they are already responsible. Although we recognise that Section 22, as it stands, is by no means comprehensive and is far from perfect, it is with a view to balancing the need for information against the need for not overloading the police that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to accept what I have said and not press his Amendment.

Mr. Isaacs

I still think there is a great deal of value in the Amendment I have moved. However, in the spirit of all our discussion and debate on this Bill, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 38, line 47, at the end to insert: 13.—(l) In section sixty-eight of the Act of 1930, in subsection (1). in the proviso to subsection (2) and in subsection (4), after the words "conditions as to fitness" there shall be inserted the words "or such of those conditions as are not dispensed with by an order of the Minister for the time being in force". (2) After the said subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections:— (1A) An order dispensing with any of the prescribed conditions as to fitness—

  1. (a) shall not be made except where it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of the making of tests or trials of a vehicle or its equipment;
  2. (b) shall specify the period for which the order is to continue in force;
  3. (c) may contain, or authorise the imposition of, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions relating to the construction, 572 equipment or use of the vehicle as respect which the order is made,
and any such order as aforesaid may be varied or revoked by the Minister. (la) Where any such order as aforesaid is revoked or otherwise ceases to have effect any certificate of fitness issued by virtue of the order shall cease to be a force. (1c) Where a certificate of fitness is issued by virtue of such an order as aforesaid and relates to a vehicle as respects which am previous certificate of fitness is in force, the previous certificate shall thereupon cease to be in force. (3) In subsection (3) of the said section sixty eight after the word "being" there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of a certificate granted by virtue of an order dispensing with any of the prescribed conditions of fitness". I can explain this Amendment quite simply by saying that it is proposed merely to try to help the export trade in large passenger-carrying vehicles such a! buses, by allowing buses of a non-standard width and length to be used, purely for experimental and testing purposes, on the roads of this country. I give the assurance that these powers will be used only for that purpose, and will be used most sparingly. But I am advised that they art essential to enable British commercial vehicle manufacturers to make certain essential tests on the roads of this country

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 39, line 46, to leave out "Notwithstanding anything" and insert "Nothing".

I trust that the House will accept my word that this is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 39, line 48, after "Act)" to insert "shall affect the institution of".

This Amendment is consequential or the Amendment which the House has just agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In pap 39, line 50, leave out "may in England be instituted".—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Mr. Watkinson

I beg to move, in page 41, to leave out lines 18 to 24.

This Amendment is necessitated by decision of the Standing Committee Clause 18, as originally drafted, contained a provision which made it obligatory a a person, after a period of disqualification from driving, to take driving tests before he or she could resume driving with a substantive licence. That proposal was strongly criticised in the Standing Committee, and was withdrawn. This Amendment implements the withdrawal.

Amendment agreed to