HL Deb 24 July 1903 vol 126 cc212-22

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE EARL or CAMPERDOWN

said he had a personal explanation to make. About a week ago he quoted in that House from the Standard newspaper certain cases in which motor-car drivers had behaved in a manner which, certainly on the face of it, appeared to be anything but praiseworthy, and one of them was a case in which a lady had an accident near Sutton, which, it was stated, had been caused by a motor-car which had not stopped, but simply left her where she was. He had yesterday received a letter, dated 21st July, which said— In your speech on Tuesday last you quoted a ease of furious driving near Sutton. I live in Sutton, and am a member of Sutton District Council, and, being a motorist myself, I thought fit to have some inquiries made in regard to this accident. My wife saw the sister of the lady who was, according to the newspaper reports, the victim of a motor-car fiend, and ascertained from her own lips that the accident was not from a motor-ear at all, but from her horse bolting by being frightened by a haymaking machine. There was no motor-car involved in the question at all. Of course he was bound to read this to the House. It showed that in that particular case the Standard was misinformed.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

I am very glad that the noble Earl has had an opportunity of making that explanation. I will answer at this moment a Question which the noble Earl asked me yesterday as to the application to Scotland of the provision which makes the owner or other persons on a car liable under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, in common with the driver, for an offence under this Bill. I am informed by the Lord Advocate that the common law of Scotland will cover all the expressions in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and I am also informed by the Irish Office that the provision will apply equally to Ireland.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

inquired whether the meetings which the noble Lord had promised to arrange between Lord Kelvin and the Local Government Board expert on the subject of the possibility of imposing a power limit had taken place.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The meeting that was arranged for has taken place. The Local Government Board expert has convinced Lord Kelvin of the impossibility of carrying out that noble Lord's suggestion, and my noble friend Lord Kelvin has authorised me to say that he intends to take no further action in the matter.

LORD BURGHCLERE moved an Amendment by which offences would be regarded as being committed by driving "without due care," rather than by driving "negligently." The adoption of his Amendment would strengthen the Bill, as it would bring an incompetent driver who was neither driving recklessly nor negligently within the scope of the Bill if he caused an accident.

Amendment moved—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'or negligently' and to insert the words 'or without due care.'" —(Lord Burghelere)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I have made special inquiry regarding the choice between these two expressions. I frankly admit that to the lay mind there is not very much difference between them, but I am assured that "negligently" is a word which is very usual in Acts of Parliament. It is perfectly understood in the legal sense, and there is less likely to be a difference of opinion about it than in the case of the expression, "without due care." if a man drives in a manner which is dangerous to the public he will come under the clause as it stands, and really that is all that it is necessary for us to provide for. I confess, speaking only for myself, that I have a great misgiving about the use of the word "due." I have never been able to make up my mind whether it strengthens or weakens the amount of care it is supposed to predicate. If I reply to a correspondent that I will pay "due" attention to his letter, it is an open question whether I wish to express any intention of paying a greater or a less amount of attention to it. I do not much like the word, and I am advised by those who are more competent than myself to express an opinion on this matter that "negligently" is the better word.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

suggested the insertion, after the words "or negligently," of the words "or without care," leaving out the word "due." He thought the clause would be strengthened in the right direction by the insertion of these words.

LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH: I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on this point.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BRAYE referred to the large number of accidents caused by motorists failing to give the necessary warning when turning corners. He thought that a provision on this subject should he inserted in the Bill rather than be left to the regulations to be subsequently made by the Local Government Board, and he hoped the noble Lord would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In Clause 1, page I, line II, after the word 'roadway' to insert the words 'or shall, when about to cross a spot where two or more streets or thoroughfares meet, fail to sound the motor horn if driving a car propelled by steam or by petrol, or fail to ring the bell if driving a car propelled by electricity.'"—(Lord Braye.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BUELEIGH: Under the Statute as it stands, which will not be altered by this Bill, every motor-car must carry a bell or other instrument capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach of the car to any point of danger. To my mind this is a matter winch is much better dealt with by regulation, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name is one which I do not think the House will have any difficulty in agreeing to. It is suggested by the County Councils Association, and the object is to prevent fraud in the use of registration and identification marks. I think this is an offence which will not often be committed, but we ought to have the right to punish it when it is committed, because it clearly partakes of the nature of fraud.

Amendment moved—

"In page 3, after Clause 3, to insert as a new clause. If any person forges or fraudulently alters or uses, or fraudulently lends or allows to be used by any other person, any mark for identifying a car or any licence under this Act he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*EARL RUSSELL moved to delete the words "motor-car" from Clause 4 and to insert the word "vehicle." Clause 4 provided that a person driving a motorcar should, in any case, if an accident occurred to any person, or his horse or vehicle, owing to the presence of the motor-car on the road, stop, and if required, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner of the car; and if any person acted in contravention of this section, he was made liable for each offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £10. He ventured to think that this offence should be punished equally if committed by the driver of a horse vehicle. Surely what was sauce for the motor-car goose should also be sauce for the horse traffic gander. In support of his Amendment the noble Earl mentioned an instance where a car belonging to himself, which was quite stationary by the side of the road, was run into by two partially intoxicated persons in a light gig, who did £8 worth of damage to the car and when asked for their names and addresses drove off and escaped all responsibility for their action.

Amendments moved—

"In Clause 4, page 3, line 2S, to leave out the words 'motor-car' and to insert the word vehicle'; in line 30, to leave out the words motor-car' and to insert the word vehicle'; and in line 32, to leave out the word 'car' and to insert the word 'vehicle.'"—Earl Russell.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I shall not go into the merits of it, although I join with the noble Earl in condemnation of the action of the driver of the vehicle to which he referred. But I would remind the noble Earl that we are engaged in amending the Light Locomotives Act and not the Highways Act. It would be beyond the scope of this measure to amend the Highways Act, and such a course would be legitimately objected to.

*EARL RUSSELL said that after the noble Lord's statement he would not press his Amendments. But he hoped that when the Highways Act was being amended this point would be borne in mind.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment to Clause 4 providing that the penalty for contravening this section should be that imposed "for an offence under this Act," instead of a fine of £10 as proposed in the clause as it stood. He said that for such an offence as driving off after causing an accident a fine of £10 was inadequate, especially as there was no increased penalty for a repeated offence. There was no cumulative penalty provided. He thought that in the first instance the offence should be visited by a fine, which might amount to £20, or imprisonment, which might amount to one month, and its repetition by a fine of £50, or six months imprisonment. Imprisonment was a most effectual deterrent, and it was for that reason he proposed the insertion of these words.

Amendment moved—

"In Clause 4, lines 33 and 34, to leave out the words liable for each offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and to insert the words 'guilty of all offence under this Act.'"—(The Earl, of Camperdown.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I think no terms can be too strong in regard to anyone who knowingly causes such an accident and then bolts; but if drivers cause damage it is certain that they will come under the purview of Clause 1 for having driven recklessly or negligently or in such a manner as to be dangerous to the public. They would, therefore, be guilty of an offence under the Act and could be punished. For causing danger to the public, or for fraud, I think that imprisonment is a fair penalty, but for this particular class of offence I do not think it is quite fair. The fine imposed may not be large enough, and it may be a question whether it should not be raised for a subsequent offence. At any rate, I am prepared to consider that point.

THE EALL or PORTSMOUTH

cited the case of a driver who passed through a village and accidentally ran over a child. Thereafter the driver bolted, and if he was not caught nothing happened; bur if caught he had only to pay £10. It seemed to him that the offence was a very serious one, because the driver used the extra speed of the motor-car to evade justice. In the interest of the public some penalty of the kind suggested might be inserted, for a non-cumulative penalty was of no value.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

said that the noble Earl's illustration was not happily chosen, for the driver of the motor-car would always be liable, under the provisions of the Act, to punishment for reckless driving.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

thought that a driver who had caused a serious accident would come within either the provisions of Clause 1 or of Clause 6. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill might say whether he was prepared to increase the penalty for a second or subsequent offence, say, to £20.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

Or imprisonment.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

No.

*EARL RUSSELL

said that a driver who had caused a fatal accident, if caught, would be liable to indictment for manslaughter. But in the cases they were considering he thought that the penalty provided was ample.

Lord BURGHCLERE

suggested that it might be possible to approximate the penalties to those in Clause 6, and the fine might even be raised to £50 for third offence.

EARL SPENCER

said they had to contemplate the case where the driver of the car was not be blame at all for the accident. He agreed, of course, that the driver should stop when the accident has occurred, but he was not disposed to support the Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am prepared to put down words making the fine £20 for the second and subsequent offence. I would rather not go to £50.

On Question, Amendment negatioved.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

called attention to the desirability of regulating the lighting and rate of speed at night. The usual practice was for motor-cars to have very powerful lamps, the light from which covered the whole of the road and blinded those approaching the motor. The regulations had not dealt very effectively with the question of lighting, and he hoped that this matter would be seen to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Earl has raised a very reasonable question, and one upon Which many communications have been received by the Local Government Board and myself. There is no doubt that some of the lamps as now used are in themselves a grievance, as they cause a great deal of fright to animals on the road. This, however, I suggest, would be better dealt with by regulation, would be more flexible than a hard and fast provision in the Bill. The matter is not free from difficulty, because while a horse will give some indication of an obstruction ahead, a motor-ear can do nothing of the kind, and therefore it is very necessary that a driver should have full light. At the same time, the lights should not be used so as to be a real annoyance, and the driver must accept the necessity of going at a slower pace at night. It is the intention of the Local Government Board to attempt to deal with this matter in the amended regulations.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS pointed out that, by Clause 6, Section 4 of the principal Act (which related to the rate of speed of motor-cars) was repealed, provided that, within any limits or place referred to in regulations made by the Local Government Board on the application of the Council of the County or County Borough in which the limits or place were situate, the speed of any motorcar should not exceed ten miles per hour. He ventured to think that the fixing of this speed limit was a departure from the principle of the Bill, and on a previous occasion he had moved an Amendment providing that the speed in towns, villages, and other populous places, and in turning corners, should be the ordinary speed of horsed vehicles. But that Amendment was negatived; and he now moved an Amendment which, while it in no way interfered with the ten-mile limit, implied that that was not to be the normal speed, but that where the public safety required it the motorcar should be driven at a much more moderate speed.

Amendment moved—

"In Clause 6, page 1, line 21, after the word 'hour' to insert the words 'or such more moderate speed as circumstances and public safety require.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The noble Earl is never so happy as when he is convicting somebody else of inconsistency, and he attempts to make out that the acceptance of a ten-mile limit in this clause is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. This clause was introduced with a fixed maximum limit of fourteen miles, reduced by Local government Board regulations to twelve, and all that we have done is to substitute for the maximum the limit of ten miles. Why did we do that I We did it in deference to the almost universally expressed opinion of the House that twelve miles was too high a maximum, an objection which I fully explained at the time I did not share, because I thought that for all purposes a twelve-mile limit was quite as safe as a ten-mile limit. But I saw from the discussion that the general sense of the House was in favour of reducing it to ten miles, and to that we gave way. Another objection to the clause as it stood was taken by the noble Earl who leads the Opposition, who stated very clearly and convincingly that what we ought to avoid was a patchwork of different speeds all over the country, and that we should simplify the matter by fixing a uniform maximum speed limit in the protected places of ten miles.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

There may be many places where ten miles an hour is too high a speed.

LORD BALFOUR OF BLTRLEIGH: As the clause now stands the Local Government Board have power to fix a less speed than ten miles in an extreme case, so that the Amendment effects no alteration in the clause, and is useless.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment standing in my name is the one suggested by the noble Earl who usually sits on the Cross Benches—Lord Rosebery. I do not myself attach very much importance to it, but I am prepared to leave it to the judgment of the House. I may say that Lord Rosebery has seen the Amendment and approves of it.

Amendment moved—

"In page 4, after Clause 6, to insert as a new clause, The Councils of Counties and County Boroughs shall within their areas cause to be set up sign posts denoting dangerous corners, cross roads, and precipitous places, where such sign posts appear to them to be necessary.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

pointed out that over by far the largest area of roads in the country the bodies named in the Amendment had no jurisdiction. Would it not, therefore, be better to leave out the words "Councils of Counties and County Boroughs,' and insert "road authorities?"

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The answer is this, that if you put this duty upon every road authority you will have an enormous number of divers kinds of posts set up. The idea of putting the obligation on the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs was that they might probably agree to something like a uniform kind of post.

EARL SPENCER

questioned whether parish roads could be considered "with-in the areas" of Councils of Counties and County Boroughs. If his contention was right, these Councils would be precluded from setting up signposts denoting dangerous corners and precipitous places in parish roads.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have one other Amendment to Clause 8. Under the Act of 1896, the Local Government Board have power to limit the speed of light locomotives, arid technically a motor bicycle drawing a trailer is affected by the limit speed for loco-motives, which, of course, is not easily defensible. The object of the Amendment is to make the powers in the hands of the Local Government Board more flexible.

Amendment moved—

"In clause 8, page 4, at the end of Clause, to insert, as a new sub-section: The power of the Local Government Board to make regulations under Section 6 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, shall, as respects motor-cars exceeding two tons in weight unladen, include a power to make regulations as to speed.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh).

On question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BRAVE

asked if there was any reason why the Act should not come into operation before the period fixed in Sub-section 2 of Clause 15—namely, January 1, 1904. Why should it not come into operation the moment it received the Royal Assent?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Clearly it cannot come into operation the moment it passes, because regulations will have to be issued. The country districts specified in the Bill will have to make their proposals to the Local Government Board, and I think it will. require an extraordinary amount of energy on the part of everybody concerned to get in into operation even by January next year. Every effort, however, will be made to get the Act in working order by that date. I should be reluctant to limit further, than it is limited in the Bill, the time in which, if the Bill passes, the intricate negotiations and arrangements to which I have referred will have to be got through.

*THE EARL OF WEMYSS

complained of a great noise which was caused a few days previously in St. James's Place by a stationary motor-car constructed like a torpedo and evidently built for speed. If all the bulls of Bashan had there been gathered together, and roared their loudest and, each in a different key, the noise could not have been worse. The motor belonged to a French gentleman, and he went out and had a talk with the chauffeur—the use of the word was pardonable in the circumstances. He asked him what was the name of that animal, pointing to the motor? Answer: un Mors. He then asked him if it was ill, and he replied that it was not. He then asked him if it always made such a terrific noise, and the chauffeur replied "toujours." There ought to be some redress against a nuisance of that kind.

EARL SPENCER

said that some motorcars were most amiable and the noise they made almost soothing. But he agreed with the noble Earl that the particular car in question made a most ferocious noise on the occasion referred to. There should be power to check such a nuisance, but he doubted if it could be provided in the Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The President of the Local Government Board is fully aware of the nuisance, and will deal with it by regulation if possible; it cannot be dealt with in the Bill.

Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next and to be printed as amended.

House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Mondaynext, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.