HL Deb 30 July 1907 vol 179 cc705-14

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment to provide that every person who should cause or permit any vehicle to be in any street, highway, or road to which the public had access during the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, should provide such vehicle with a lamp or lamps "in proper working order." He understood that in the opinion of those who were responsible for the introduction of this Bill it was the owner who ought to be made responsible and not the driver. He moved the insertion of the words "in proper working order "to make it quite clear that that was the case. For instance, the owner might supply a defective lamp or one without oil or wick. By the Amendment the onus would be on the owner of supplying a lamp in proper working order, and he hoped the noble Karl in charge of the Bill would have no objection to its insertion.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, after the word ' lamps ' to insert the words ' in proper working order and."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he would accept the Amendment. The Government had a number of Amendments on the Paper, and he hoped their insertion would not make it difficult to get the Bill considered when it went back to the other House. He trusted that they would have the assistance of the Government in avoiding the loss of the Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

endorsed the appeal of the noble Earl. He said the Bill had been for months in another place, where these Amendments, which were purely Departmental Amendments, ought to have been introduced. It would be a very unfortunate thing if, through the insertion of the Government's Amendments at this stage, the Bill were lost altogether. He hoped the noble Earl who represented the Home Office would give their Lordships some assurance on. the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said his Amendment to this Clause was in the same direction as the Amendment to which their Lordships had just agreed.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'no' and to insert the words 'if a,' and after the word 'person' to insert the words 'driving or being in charge of a vehicle is.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

LORD AVEBURY

moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 3, so as to give the council of any borough power to exempt any district from the operation of the Act. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had written to him on the subject of this Amendment. There were seven miles of road along the quay, and it was well lighted. They were anxious to avoid the requirement of special lights in order to minimise the danger of fire. This was recognised in the Bill, and the Secretary of State was allowed to exempt any vehicle which was carrying inflammable goods. This seemed a cumbersome, and in some cases quite unworkable provision; moreover, the driver often did not know whether his load contained inflammable materials or not. And if he did, how was he to get an order? He did not see what evil could follow from the Amendment. Surely the local authority could be trusted, and the Secretary of State would not give his consent except for good reason.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 10, after the word 'any,' to insert the words ' district, or any— (Lord Avebury.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

held that the case of Liverpool was already met in the Bill. Under the Bill the council of any borough might, by order approved by Secretary of State, exempt any vehicle from the operation of the Act; and Subsection (5) provided that— The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board shall as respects the area under their control have the same power to make an order of exemption under this section as the council of a borough have as respects their borough, and the powers of the council of a borough under this section shall not extend to any part of the borough which is situated within that area. He admitted that Liverpool was a special case requiring special protection, but claimed that this protection had been given in the subsection to which he had referred.

LORD AVEBURY

said his Amendment was not designed to give any power to any district, but simply to enable, the local authority to exempt any district. What the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Salvage Association desired was that the seven miles of road belonging to the docks, which was already well lighted and in which there was very inflammable produce, should be exempted. No doubt there might be similar cases in other parts of the country, and he thought there was much force in the suggestion that the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, should be allowed to exempt any particular area to which these conditions applied. He would not, however, press his Amendment at the present stage.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the people of Liverpool already had the power, under the subsection to which Lord Donoughmore had referred, of excluding the particular district in question. What Lord Avebury's Amendment proposed was that, not only in the case of Liverpool, but in respect of every district throughout the country, the council of the borough should have power of exemption. That was an Amendment which His Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press it.

EARL RUSSELL

thought Lord Ave-bury could not have considered the effect of Subsection (1) of Clause 3, which pro- vided that the council of any borough might exempt— Any vehicle which is carrying any inflamable goods of a kind specified in the order, or any vehicle being within any place specified in the order, in which, in the opinion of the council, it would be dangerous to enforce the provisions of the Act owing to the fact that inflammable goods are usually stored or dealt with in or near the place. That surely covered any vehicle in the road along the quay at Liverpool and met the object of the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved the insertion of a new subsection to provide that the council of any county borough might, by order approved by the Secretary of State, exempt from the operation of the Bill any vehicle which was not proceeding faster than a walking pace. He explained that he moved the Amendment on behalf of the Employers' Parliamentary Council and the Liverpool Cart-owners' Association. The Bill enabled lights to be insisted upon everywhere, but there was no object in lights being carried on carts that went slowly through well-lighted towns. His Amendment was, therefore, strictly in accordance with common-sense, and the public safety would in no way suffer. He would also like to see it extended to carts in the country, where the danger was really caused by motorists and others travelling at a high speed rather than by carts going at a walking pace.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 16, after the word 'place ' to insert the following new subsection: '(2) The council of any county borough may, by order approved by the Secretary of State, exempt from the operation of this Act, subject to any conditions mentioned in the order, any vehicle which is not proceeding faster than a walking pace.' "—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment, which appeared to be based upon the fallacy that a vehicle which was moving slowly or not at all was not a source of danger on a dark night. It was agreed that an abandoned cart without a horse left in the middle of the road would be a serious obstruction to traffic, and it seemed to him that a slowly-moving vehicle was almost as great a danger as one which was not moving at all. An argument in favour of the Amendment was that it would only apply to boroughs where the streets were well lighted; but a cart so exempted might very easily get out of the well lighted locality and become a source of danger.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

entirely agreed with the view expressed by Lord Clifford. This Amendment was moved when the Bill was before the House of Commons Committee, and was rejected by a majority of 29 to 10; and if it were inserted now the Bill would probably be lost owing to disagreement with another place. But on merits he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, for there could be no doubt that slow-going traffic was just as dangerous as fast-going traffic.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Home Office were entirely in accord with the views stated by noble Lords opposite, and he therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LUDLOW

moved an Amendment to give the London County Council within the Administrative County of London the same powers under this section as the council of a borough had within their borough. The words at the beginning of the section were "the council of any borough." This would not include the London County Council, which was the authority in London for explosives; neither would any borough council in the metropolis be included.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 39, after the word 'rate' insert the following new subsection: ' (6) The London County Council shall within the Administrative County of London have the same powers under this section as the council of a borough have within their borough, and for the purposes of this section the county fund shall be substituted for the borough fund or rate.' "— (Lord Ludlow.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he hesitated to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on a question of law, but he understood that the Bill would include the metropolitan borough councils. The effect of the Amendment would be to make confusion worse confounded, because it would give the London County Council powers which no other county council in the country possessed.

LORD LUDLOW

said the London County Council were the authority in London for explosives, and they would be unable to take advantage of the exemption in Clause 3 unless they were included. The metropolitan borough councils had no powers whatever in the matter.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that one of the main objects of the Bill was to make the law the same throughout the country. The Amendment would give the London County Council powers which no other county council possessed, and for those reasons the Home Office were very unwilling to agree to the Amendment. At the present time the London County Council had powers to make a by-law practically carrying out this section, but, though they had this power, they had never exercised it. As they had not seen fit to exercise it in the past the Home Office did not think it necessary to give them this power in the future.

LORD AVEBURY

supported the Amendment and referred to the enormously valuable property in the London docks which it was desirable should be protected from fire. It was quite true that no other county council would have this power, but then no other county council was in the same position. The London County Council in this matter was in the same position as the borough councils throughout the country, and in the interest of fire prevention at the docks it was desirable that the London County Council should have the power suggested in the Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

repeated that the London County Council had had this power in the past, but had not exercised it. Therefore, as they had not thought fit to exercise it in the past, it was not proposed to give them the power in the future.

*VISCOUNT ESHER

inquired whether the London County Council would in the future retain the power which it had been said they now possessed.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

understood they would not; but the borough councils would be able to exercise the power if they thought it necessary. The local authorities in whose areas the London docks were situated would know more about the circumstances than the County Council, and it would be better to leave the matter to them.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

thought it would be advisable to give these powers to the central authority, as proposed in the Amendment, seeing that there were at least three borough councils in whose districts the docks were situated which might all adopt different methods. Moreover London boroughs were not on the same footing as other boroughs, and the London County Council was really the urban authority for London.

LORD LUDLOW

said it was no good including the London borough councils in this clause, because they had absolutely no powers in regard to explosives. The authority for explosives was the London County Council, and that Council should therefore be included.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to insert the following new clause:—"The council of any county may by order exempt from the operation of this Act vehicles carrying in the course of harvesting operations any farm produce to stack or barn during such months or periods in the year as may be specified in the order, and any such orders may be made either to take effect throughout the whole county or to take effect in part only of the county." He said this Amendment was introduced in place of Sub-section (e) of Clause 4, which exempted from the operation of the Act "any vehicle carrying farm produce to stack or barn during the months of August, September, and October." Farmers would, by this new clause, be able to benefit from the exemption during the hay harvest, as well as during the corn harvest.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause: 4. The council of any county may by order exempt from the operation of this Act vehicles carrying in the course of harvesting operations any farm produce to stack or barn during such months or periods in the year as may be speci- fied in the order, and any such orders may be made either to take effect throughout the whole county or to take effect in part only of the county.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said he understood one of the objects of this Bill was that the same law should apply to the whole of the country; but it was obvious that under this clause there would not be uniformity. However, if the House were disposed to accept this Amendment, he would not press his opposition to it.

*LORD CLIFFORD Of CHUDLEIGH

said the effect of the Amendment would be that a traveller travelling from county to county or from one part of a county to another would be ignorant whether a cart in that locality was exempted from carrying lights. He thought it would be much better if the Bill could in this matter remain as it stood, so that the months during which this privilege was given should be laid down by Statute and be known by everyone.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said that under the circumstances he would not resist the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:—

Consequential Amendment, agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON Of DALZELL

moved a new sub-section providing that the Act should not apply to Scotland. The Bill in the form in which it originally appeared in the other House contained a clause by which Scotland was exempted from its operations, and in consequence the Bill was not opposed by the Secretary for Scotland during any of its steps there. That clause remained in the Bill until the last moment, and then an Amendment was carried striking it out. It was to reinsert the clause that he now moved his Amendment. The references in the Bill were all to English Acts and to English procedure, and he was afraid that if the House did not agree to the exclusion of Scotland, it would be necessary for him to move a whole series of Amendments at a later stage, in order to make the Bill in any way workable in Scotland.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 37, after the word 'road ' to insert the following subsection: (5) 'This Act shall not apply to Scotland. ' "—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he would be unwilling to do anything which would prevent Scottish people killing each other in any way they liked. He therefore accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

moved the insertion of a new clause. He explained that with out this clause every man, woman, or child in Ireland who had a bicycle would be compelled to carry a lamp on the off' side. Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 pro vided that This Act shall apply to every sort of vehicle except the following:— (a) Any bicycle, tricycle, or velocipede to which the provisions of section eighty five of the Local Government Act, 1888, requiring lamps to be carried apply. The Local Government Act of 1888 did not apply to Ireland, and therefore the provision as to the position of the lamp would apply in Ireland in the case of a bicycle or other similar machine. He did not know whether the offside of a bicycle could be defined; in any case, there would be considerable difficulty in fixing a lamp to the off-side. One way in which the difficulty could be avoided would be by cyclists carrying two lamps; but as cyclists frequently considered one lamp rather superfluous he did not think that was a provision to which they would agree. It was to prevent an injustice being done to cyclists in Ireland that he moved his Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, to insert the following new clause: ' 5. In the application of this Act to Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the provision as to the position of the lamp, if only one lamp is provided, shall not apply in the case of a bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine.' "—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

accepted the Amendment, and said he was grateful to the noble Lord for his solicitude for his fellow countrymen.

*VISCOUNT 'ST. ALDWYN

thought that what had passed with regard to this Bill should be to some extent a warning to their Lordships as to dealing with Bills of this nature which came up to them proposed by non-official Members in the House of Commons. The measure, they were told, as it now stood, would enact great injustice to cyclists in Ireland, and the Scottish Office said it could not give satisfaction in Scotland. He did not see why English farmers should be less considered than Scottish farmers in this matter, or why those who took a motor or carriage from England to Scotland should be subjected, more in Scotland than in England, to the danger of a loaded wagon which was not lighted. He was afraid the Bill had not been sufficiently considered by the House of Commons. He was told that it slipped through at half-past one in the morning when probably very few Members were in the House, and when neither the representative of the Scottish Office nor of the Irish Office was there.

LORD DENMAN

I think he was.

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

said the Bill was then sent up to their Lordships' House in a very imperfect state, by the admission of the noble Lord who had just spoken, and they wore expected to pass it practically without Amendment, because if any Amendments were inserted it would be probably lost this session, as no time could be found for its further consideration by the House of Commons. He thought it was rather hard on their Lordships to be placed in such a position, which could certainly not conduce to satisfactory legislation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Other clauses and preamble agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 141.)