§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ Obligatory lights to be carried by vehicles at night.
§
(3) The Minister shall have power by regulations to add to, or vary, the requirements of this Act, and to require or permit distinctive lamps to be carried displaying lights of such colour and used under such conditions as may be prescribed, in the case of—
(b) vehicles used for naval, military, Air Force or police purposes, or as ambulances, or for any other special purposes mentioned in the regulation;
and, where distinctive lamps are so required or permitted to prohibit similar lamps being carried by any other vehicles.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL) moved to add to paragraph (b) in subsection (3) "or in the case of vehicles used for naval, military or Air Force purposes to grant exemption (whole or partial) from the requirements of this Act." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I move this Amendment with a verbal alteration from the form in which it stands on the Paper, but that is purely a drafting point. I gave an undertaking during the discussion in Committee that I would limit the power of the Minister to grant exemption whole or partial to the class of vehicles which appear in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and to limit it to naval, military or Air Force requirements, on manœuvres or otherwise. I think that this Amendment substantially meets the point.
1237
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("or in the case of vehicles used for naval, military or Air Force purposes to grant exemption (whole or partial) from the requirements of this Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for having been good enough to put in these words. This is as much as I can expect the noble Viscount to do and, though this is the only successful Amendment of all those that I moved yesterday, I feel that I have reason to be thankful.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI congratulate the noble Earl on his success in carrying through his Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended)—
§ VISCOUNT PEELMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to one or two points that were raised by noble Lords yesterday. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, raised the point regarding hand carts having ladders which he said would project some way. I understand that these ladders carried on carts would project more than six feet behind and would probably come under the general operation of the Act as regards carrying lights, and would not be regarded as coming under any of the exemptions concerning perambulators, hand barrows and so on.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThey probably would have to carry a white light in front and a red light behind.
§ VISCOUNT PEELYes, at the far end. Then the noble Earl raised a point about the visibility of the red light at the back of a single front lamp carried by a short agricultural vehicle. Most of these vehicles would not be more than six feet long and the red light in that case would be visible from a reasonable angle. Of course if the vehicle carried a load that substantially cut off the light from the rear, then I presume it would be held by the Court that the light was not visible for a reasonable distance 1238 and that point of the noble Earl would, I think, be met. A third point was raised by Lord Clinton as to the use of reflectors at the back of a projecting piece of timber. I promised that I would have that point carefully considered. It has been considered, and the general view of the Ministry of Transport is that there is no certainty that a reflector under the conditions that would obtain would be attached or remain at an angle that would make it capable of reflecting the lights of an oncoming vehicle, and therefore, for the safety of users of the road, it seems essential that these dangerous projecting loads should have a definite source of light attached to them. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, was satisfied regarding invalid carriages.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPYes.
§ VISCOUNT PEELI think those were the only three points raised by noble Lords, apart from the Amendment that has been agreed to.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I do not mean to give any trouble to the noble Viscount, but I must say that I am not wholly satisfied by his opinion that "probably" the question of ladders on carts would be covered by the general law. On such a Bill as this I should have liked something a little more certain from the Minister in charge than his opinion that probably this instance would come within the operation of the law. It seems to me that all vehicles of this kind are quite clearly exempted, by the provision of Clause 1, in paragraph (c) of subsection 2, from the provisions with regard to two lights in front and one light behind. However that may be, I do not propose at this stage to enter into any controversy.
§ VISCOUNT PEELPerhaps I ought to have expressed myself with more definite-ness. I am so cautious that I used the word "probably." I think I can use the word "certainly," because if the noble Earl will look at Clause 7, subsection (2), he will be satisfied that the point is entirely met.
EARL RUSSELLMy objection about lights being seen behind was not really so much a question of length as a ques- 1239 tion of the height of the load on the cart. I am, however, very glad to hear the noble Viscount's opinion that a light in the position I have indicated will be held to be a not properly visible light.
§ VISCOUNT PEELThat is my opinion for what it is worth.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.