PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 5 December 1911)

§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)

My Lords, at this stage I should like to make a few observations on a point raised in Committee by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who I regret is unable to be in his place to-day. But let me first clear up a smaller point which was raised by Lord Ashbourne in Committee. He asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether the Bill had been before a Committee, and Lord Charnwood said it had been before a Select Committee. In giving that answer the noble Lord made a slip. It was not a Select Committee, but a Grand Committee. I sent the noble and learned Lord a copy of the proceedings, and I hope it has given him the information he desired. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the Bill had not been discussed in the House of Commons, and I think that view was shared by other noble Lords. As a matter of fact, this Bill has been two years before Parliament. It was in Committee in the House of Commons last year, when it was extensively amended at the instance of the Irish Local Government Board. It was in Committee in the other House again this year, and was again subjected to amendment. The Bill is generally supported by both sections of opinion in Ireland, and no protest has been received from any official source with regard to it. It has the advantage, therefore, of being non-controversial, and it is an attempt to assimilate the law in Ireland to the law in this country.

With regard to Lord Lansdowne's point, the noble Marquess asked how far this Bill had any application to what is known as light motor vehicles. The Bill does apply to them in so far as Clause 1 is concerned, where expenses are incurred as the result of extraordinary traffic. There the county council or borough council are empowered to recover such expenses from the owner of the motor car; and there is a further provision, which I think is an important one, which allows for a composition to be entered into between the county council and owners of motor cars. But what the Bill does not provide is any regulation as to the width of motor car tyres, though 572 I submit that this Bill is a great advance on the state of the law in Ireland at present. There is nothing but the Act of 1865 which governs this question, and it is doubtful whether a county council has any right except at Common Law, which perhaps is not worth a great deal, to recover if damage is done to roads as the result of extraordinary traffic. I think we may claim that this Bill affords fair protection to the ratepayers without throwing unduly onerous burdens on the owners of this traffic.

But the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition was not satisfied. He wished to go a step further, and suggested that an Amendment should be inserted to regulate the width of motor car tyres. Probably the noble Marquess was thinking of what he has doubtless experienced in the county of Kerry, where there is an extensive tourist trade at the present time, and where undoubtedly great damage has been done to many of the roads, and this condition of affairs prevails elsewhere. If we were to adopt the noble Marquess's suggestion and regulate the width of motor tyres, the first result would be to introduce a controversial matter into the Bill. There is a view held by some noble Lords that as a matter of fact already this Bill places a rather unfair burden on motor traffic. But in that connection I would say that in Ireland a great many of the roads that we are considering are merely farmers' roads, and it seems hard that tourists who travel over them and spoil the roads should throw the expense of repairing them on the farming class who derive no benefit from the tourist trade. And there is this further point, that the making of roads in Ireland presents engineering difficulties. To make a really good road across a bog, which is often involved, would necessitate considerable expense. There is another objection to proceeding in the way the noble Marquess desired, and that is that anything which would have the effect of regulating the width of motor tyres would have to be the subject of very careful consideration. We should have to decide what weight and what width were the best to take, so as to protect roads without practically prohibiting the use of motor traffic altogether.

Apart from that, I do not think the noble Marquess's Amendment is needed, because there is already a power under the Motor Car Act of 1896 which enables the 573 Local Government Board to make regulations with regard to the breadth of motor tyres. The clause runs— The Local Government Board may make regulations with respect to the use of light locomotives on highways and their construction"— which, of course, covers the question of the width of tyres— and the conditions under which they may be used"; and there is a subsection which enables the Local Government Board to limit the application of these regulations; so that it is clear that they have power, if representations were made to them and appeared to be properly substantiated, to regulate the kind of traffic that should go over any particular road. Indeed, the Local Government Board have already made regulations with regard to heavy motors, and I have no doubt whatever that they would be willing and able to make regulations with regard to light motors, as they are called, in a similar manner. In these circumstances we feel that the Bill holds a fair balance between the ratepayers and motorists generally. It is, as I have said, an advance upon the present state of the law in Ireland; it has the advantage of being non-controversial, and therefore the Government would not feel inclined to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he should amend it in the manner suggested by the noble Marquess, and I hope your Lordships may concur in that view.