§ EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 11 under which the head-lights of motorcars are now regulated; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Law Officers have advised that these exceptional war powers can be legally used, not for the Defence of the Realm, but in the interests of public safety as stated by Lord 214 Sandhurst on 24th June, and, if not, whether the Order will be at once withdrawn.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down a Question a short time ago in regard to Regulation No. 11 under the Defence of the Realm Act, relating to the head-lights of motor-cars. I put it down as a starred Question because. I desired merely to ask one simple point—Was this regarded as being intra vires or ultra vires of the Defence of the Realm Act? The noble Lord, Lord. Sandhurst, in the reply he was instructed to make dealt with it, and said it was desirable in the interests of public safety. I was not in a position on that occasion to argue that point and I do not propose to argue it to-day. I propose only to say this—that if it were desirable by the proper Tribunal, which is the Local Government Board, to make au alteration in the Use and Construction of Motor Cars Order,. it is open to them to do it after the ordinary and proper inquiry and consultation with the Royal Automobile Club and other bodies which are able to speak with authority as to what is desirable and practicable.
§ My Question does not really relate to motor-ears, as such, at all. It may be regarded to some extent as a continuation of the debate that we have just had. It relates to the abuse by Government Departments of these exceptional powers of making Rules and Regulations which were given to them under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the using of them for purely civilian administrative purposes to-save themselves trouble. In this case there is the less excuse because, as I have pointed out, there exists a Department specially charged with this duty which can quite properly make Regulations. I therefore felt bound to put the Question down again, to ask the Government whether the Law Officers have advised that these exceptional powers can be legally used, not for the Defence of the Realm, but in the interests of public safety, which was-given by the noble Lord himself as the reason for making the Regulation. I do not admit that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of public safety—no accidents have occurred. It was not found, so before the war, and it is not so now. But that is not really the point.
§ The point is that you are using an Act for the Defence of the Realm, and a Regulation primarily made under that Act to, defend us from the attacks of Zeppelins, in 215 order to regulate a purely domestic matter. It is desirable that the powers of a Department should be called attention to and curtailed when they are acting in this illegal manner. I do not think it ought to be necessary to take a Department into Court and get a verdict that a Regulation is ultra vires when it is as plain on the face of it as it is on this occasion. I shall be anxious to hear whether the Law Officers have been consulted, and, if so, what opinion they have given. If the noble Earl quotes their opinion I would ask him to quote their ipsissima verba If he does not, I shall have to call attention to the matter again.
§ I cannot see why motorists who are oppressed with illegal Regulations should be bound to take them to the High Court in order to get a judgment on the matter when the Law Officers are available to advise the Crown as to whether the matter is in order or not. We are now at peace; it is no longer even a question of the Armistice. So far as our principal opponent is concerned we are actually and technically at peace, and these regulations and powers made for the purposes of war, I venture to say, must not and should not be used by a Department for purposes which have nothing whatever to do with the Defence of the Realm, or the reason for which the powers were put into their hands.
THE EARL OF JERSEYMy Lords, as the noble Earl has reminded us, he put an almost similar inquiry about a fortnight ago, and from the fact that he feels compelled to repeat it I must, of course, infer that he was not wholly satisfied with the answer he then received. In fact, he has told us so quite plainly. I observe that in asking the Question he says it has nothing to do with motor-cars, but as the head, lights on motor-cars are specifically mentioned it is somewhat difficult for me entirely to dissociate motor-cars from any reply I may give.
I am quite sure that the noble Earl does not in any way underrate the importance of endeavouring to ensure the safety of the public by any possible means—and he has said so. I gather that what he is really concerned with is whether the Government are acting strictly within their legal powers in enforcing this Order under the altered conditions in which we now find ourselves. He is, in fact, seeking to protect the Government 216 against any ill-advised action which may possibly get them into trouble. Therefore the Question very naturally divides itself into two parts. There is, first, the desirability of the Order in quest ion.
EARL RUSSELLNot in the least. I endeavoured to make it perfectly plain that I ask no question as to the desirability of the Order.
THE EARL OF JERSEYI know that the noble Earl did not raise that point. His question was as to the legality of the Order. At the same time I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words as to the desirability, because I have to try and persuade the noble Earl—I do not know whether I shall succeed—that the Order is both desirable in existing circumstances, and also, and especially, that it is legal to enforce it. As to the desirability of the Order, I would refer the noble Earl to the latter part of the reply to the Question asked by him on June 24 last. The noble Earl said in his speech that lie did not admit that it was in any way an answer, if I understood him aright, to say that it was for the safety of the public that head-lights should be controlled. He said that he had never heard of any accidents arising from conspicuous head-lights, and he saw no reason in the interests of the public why any control should be exercised over the lights carried on motor-cars.
There will be, I think, general agreement that some measures are necessary to control the power of the lights which may be used on motor-cars. Not only is this view held by non-motorists, but it has been widely expressed in the motoring Press. Before the war many lamps were in use which were not only a nuisance but a danger to drivers of approaching vehicles and other users of the roads, and with the further developments which may be anticipated in the manufacture of electric lamp bulbs the need for some regulation of the power that may be used will become even more necessary than it was before the war. As the noble Earl himself mentioned, the present Order has nothing to do with air raids. The Order which was in force before the Armistice was revoked immediately on the cessation of hostilities. The present Order is intended merely as an interim measure, to retain some control over the use of headlights of dangerous brilliancy pending further measures on a permanent basis.
217 The problem is not a simple one. What is required is a device which will suppress the dazzling quality of the beams from a powerful lamp while allowing sufficient light for all reasonable requirements even on a bad road. Several devices have been submitted to the Home Office in the last few months, but none of them have satisfactorily met the requirements indicated. As the noble Earl was informed on June 24, the matter is one which it is hoped will eventually come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Ways and Communications, who will no doubt put it on a permanent bass. In the interval it would, in the opinion of the Government, be undesirable and dangerous to remove or further to relax the restrictions which at present exist and have been found to be in the general interest.
As to the legality of the Regulation, I would remind the noble Earl that under Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, His Majesty in Council is empowered to issue regulations for securing the public safety as well as the defence of the Realm. Regulation No. 11, under which the Lights (Vehicles) Order is made, was drawn up with the advice of the Parliamentary counsel, and is still in force. The matter is clearly one of public safety, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the Order is within the scope of the Regulation under which it is made. The Order has not been referred to the Law Officers. There appears to be no doubt that it is intra vires, and it would, of course, be very difficult to consult the Law Officers on every Order made by a Government Department. If any one doubts the legality of the Order it is, of course, always open to him to test the question in the Courts, which is an even higher authority than the Law Officers. I need, perhaps, hardly assure the noble Earl that the Order is not enforced from any desire to maintain arbitrary or irksome official control a day longer than is absolutely necessary, but solely because the Regulation in question is honestly believed to be in the best interests of public safety.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, I certainly do not disagree with what has just been said as to the desirability of placing some restriction and limitation on the head-lights of motor-cars. Any one who has used the roads in any capacity must recognise that their at present unrestricted use is not merely an inconvenience 218 but a great danger to the travelling public. But that does not cover the real point of this Question. The real question is, not whether it is for the public convenience that this restriction should be in force, but, is it within the public law that it should be used? It seems to me a very serious thing indeed if a Government Department, with the best intentions in the world, are to say, "Any one can realise that some protective measure is required in this direction or that, and we therefore propose to issue an Order in Council (which is protected by the Defence of the Realm Act) and punish, or attempt to punish, any person who disobeys its provisions." If any one thinks for a moment what the Defence of the Realm Act meant, and what the Orders in Council were intended to cover, they cannot possibly have believed it to have contemplated an Order to regulate in times of peace the use of motor traffic on the roads. What I feel very strongly is this, that even if the Parliamentary draftsman has advised the Department that such an Order can be made, it is in fact an abuse of the process of the Defence of the Realm Act to issue it at the present time. We ought to be very careful that whatever rights and liberties we enjoy shall be curtailed and controlled only by Acts of Parliament passed in the proper way; and an Order in Council issued now under the Defence of the Realm Act, for special purposes, is not in my humble view a proper mode of legislating.
EARL RUSSELLI must say, my Lords, that I regard the answer of the noble Earl as so unsatisfactory that I shall be compelled to recur to the subject, and I press him to take the opinion of the Law Officers. I would point out to him, in reply to an observation which he made, that this is a specially challenged Regulation, and I must recur to the subject in order that we may have it settled, once and for all, whether we are to continue to-day to live under exceptional Regulations.