HL Deb 25 April 1929 vol 74 cc183-209

Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I understand that, according to your Lordships' procedure, it is necessary for me to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, and I rise to do so. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and you will know that the Select Committee has reported. I have to admit at the very outset that my Motion is not in accordance with the formal recommendation of that Committee, but I hope to show your Lordships that, subject to the Amendments which I am ready to introduce into the Bill, my Motion is in substantial conformity with the opinion of that Committee. The Committee had rather a chequered career. It was dogged by misfortune from the very outset. It consisted of five members, and one of its most valued members, Lord Danesfort, was ill from the very outset and was unable for a considerable time to attend its meetings. Unfortunately the same accident happened to a less extent to two or three other members of the Committee, and finally, as a climax of misfortune, our Chairman, Lord Wemyss, was so unfortunate as to break his leg and will not, I am afraid, be present to assist our deliberations to-day. It is a smaller matter that I incidentally broke one of my ribs, but there was evidently something very pernicious about the atmosphere of that Committee Room.

The result was that the Committee carried on its business under some difficulties. I merely mention this without, as I need not say, making any kind of complaint, but it so happened that the decision not to recommend your Lordships to proceed with the Bill was taken at a meeting which I was unfortunately prevented by illness from attending. Indeed, I did not know that there was any idea of such a Motion being made until the very morning on which it was made. The result was—though I am not suggesting that any one was to blame—that a decision was taken without any argument being heard on the subject at all. We heard a good deal of evidence, but, speaking only for myself, I venture to submit to those of your Lordships who have read the evidence, that a great part of it was only evidence of opinion—valuable, no doubt, but not evidence of fact. In all those circumstances I venture to suggest that this House is entitled to examine rather closely the grounds on which the Committee has arrived at the conclusion that it reached and, if necessary, to take action, as I think would be desirable, to review the Bill in spite of the formal recommendation of the Committee.

Your Lordships will find in the Report of the Committee, which is commendably brief, the main principles of the Bill set out under seven heads. The first proposal of the Bill is that the central authority ought to be satisfied of the physical and other competence of a driver before a licence is given to him, and it suggests, though it does not absolutely direct, that the best way of satisfying the authority on that point would be by an examination. The Committee agree with that general principle. They agree that a licence ought not to be issued unless the central authority is satisfied, but they think that perhaps it would not be necessary to have an examination. I submit that, so far as that principle of the Bill is concerned, the finding of the Committee is in favour of the Bill. I will come back presently to the points on which the Committee disagree with the Bill, but I will deal now with the points upon which they agree. The next is the proposal— That regulations should be made requiring cars to be constructed with such appliances as will conduce to safety. The Committee are in favour of that provision. It does not, in fact, go very much beyond what is already the law. The next proposal with which they agree is the fifth— That the Minister of Transport should make regulations for avoiding accidents on the precedent of the regulations to prevent collisions at sea. They agree with the proposition, as stated there, without qualification: but for some reason which I admit I do not quite understand, they dislike the idea of the first copy of those regulations being inserted in the Act. The last proposition with which they agree is the proposition marked (g):— That all persons convicted of dangerous, or incompetent driving are to have their licences suspended automatically unless the Court before whom they are tried have definite reasons for ordering otherwise. On that point they agree without any qualification whatever. Therefore on very important points of this Bill the Committee agreed that some such change in the law is desirable.

Now I come to the points on which they did not agree. The Bill proposed that with regard to speed the hard and fast regulation of speed must be relaxed, in view of the changes of construction and particularly in view of the increased power of stopping a car, because that is the really important point, and it proposed that speed should be under Ministerial direction subject to Parliamentary control. The Committee did not disagree to that part of the Bill. But the Bill goes on to make a proposal that whatever limit of speed is fixed the car should have a mechanical contrivance preventing it from going faster than that speed. I am sorry to say that the Committee disagreed with that proposal. There was a good deal of evidence against it, I freely admit, and although I myself remain of opinion that it was a right proposal to make, yet in deference to the views of my colleagues I have put down an Amendment to leave that provision out of the Bill.

Then there was a provision with regard to compulsory third-party insurance—that everybody who drives a car should be compelled to take out an insurance policy to compensate anybody who was injured by the driving of the car. I believe that every member of the Committee desired with the greatest earnestness to see some such provision established in the law if it could be done—I certainly did—but I am bound to admit that the evidence as to the practical difficulties of doing it was very considerable, and I do not disagree with my colleagues in their conclusion that that clause in the Bill must be for the present omitted. I have therefore put down an Amendment asking for the omission of that clause. There was also a provision to which I attached some importance, and which I think still to be desirable, permitting road authorities, under the control of the Minister of Transport, to make such alterations in the surface of the road as would, at very dangerous places, actually prevent cars from going at more than a very limited speed. That provision excited, I may say, the vehement hostility of my colleagues. It seemed to them a shocking proposal, and although I was not able to find from the evidence given a single fact showing that it would do any harm, yet the Committee were very strongly against it, and in view of their strong opinion I have put down an Amendment asking for the omission of that clause.

If and when your Lordships should be so good as to agree to those Amendments, the Bill would then be devoid of any criticism as to its provisions by my colleagues on the Committee. At least that is my submission to your Lordships. As I am mentioning Amendments which might usefully be made in the Bill, there is one other—very likely there are several others, but there is one other which, in view of what has been said in this House, I think ought to be made, and that is with reference to the regulations made under the Bill. I think it would be desirable to provide that they should only come into operation if a Resolution is passed by each House of Parliament approving of them, rather than that we should provide that they should come into force unless a Resolution is passed disapproving of them. I venture to think that with that change the control of Parliament would be ample to prevent the chance of any injustice to His Majesty's subjects.

That is the detail of the Bill as affected by the Report of the Committee, according to my submission to this House, but that leaves out, of course, the conclusion at which the majority of the Committee arrive—namely, that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with. My colleagues only give one reason for that recommendation. The one reason is that the Bill would have little chances of success. The phrase is a little ambiguous. It may mean little chance of Parliamentary success, or little chance of substantial success if enacted. That it has little chance of Parliamentary success has unfortunately been well known to us all from the very day on which the Bill was introduced, or certainly since the Second Reading, because the Government then explained to us, as they were entitled to do, that the state of business in the other House was so difficult that there was little chance of the Bill passing the other House. That was the position right through. But in spite of that this House thought that it was desirable that the Bill should have a Second Reading, and that it should go to a Select Committee, with the object, as I understood at the time, that the Select Committee should make such changes in the Bill as they thought right, and that it should then come back for consideration by your Lordships in time to enable this House to pass it through all its stages, so that the other House could pass it into law if it chose. If it did not choose, that was the responsibility of the other House and had nothing to do with your Lordships.

Therefore I venture to think that the fact that the Parliamentary chances of the Bill are remote ought not to make any difference to the action of this House in dealing with the Bill now. It is the business of this House, I suggest, to deal with any legislation brought before it on its merits, and if this House is satisfied that the evil which it seeks to remedy is a real and important evil, and that the remedies proposed are likely to be of advantage in mitigating or removing that evil, then it is right for your Lordships to pass the Bill, even if the result of that decision may not be to put the Bill upon the Statute Book. Otherwise it would be evident that your Lordships would have first to ascertain what were the chances of success in the other House before considering any Bill brought before you. That is a position which I do not imagine that any member of this House would recommend.

If, however, that is not the meaning of my colleagues, and if they mean that they think that the Bill, with the changes that I have suggested, would have little chances of diminishing the dangers of the road, then I express my dissent from that view, and my surprise that anyone should hold it. They recommend the changes that I have stated as improvements in the law. They recommend them because, I imagine, they think they would make the road safer. Otherwise there is no sense in recommending them at all. I agree with them. I think they would make the road safer. I have no doubt at all, to take only one provision, that to say that dangerous drivers should have their licences suspended, unless the Court for special reasons recommended that they should not be suspended—and the official witness from the Ministry supported that proposal—would make an enormous change in the character of the driving, which is the cause of these terrible and lamentable accidents.

And there are other provisions. I said I would only give one: I will give one more. The Bill seeks to give statutory force to those lines that we now see drawn on the roads, which everybody admits are right and proper, but which at present have no statutory authority. They are merely indications, which may be utterly disregarded by the drivers on the road as far as the law is concerned. A friend of mine told me that he was driving along a road near the place where I live in the country, which has a great many turns in it—it is a long hill; and as he came to one of the turns he found that just in front of him was a steam lorry going very slowly. He fell in behind the steam lorry, of course reducing his speed to the ten or twelve miles an hour that it was going, and followed the lorry. But presently a young man, driving fast behind him, went right out on to the wrong side of the road round this corner, seeking to pass both his car and the lorry. Another car came down, and, though the accident was not a serious one, it was only by good luck that a very serious accident did not take place. I say that it ought to be quite sufficient to show against a driver of that kind that he has transgressed this line on the road. It is a definite fact which anyone can prove. The question of whether it was dangerous in the circumstances is a matter of dispute and a matter of argument; but if you can show that he has done that, then it should be for him to show that in the circumstances it was safe and reasonable for him to do it. I think a provision of that kind would greatly strengthen the law, and would greatly increase the safety of driving on the road.

I only give those two instances—I think I could give several others—to show that the changes proposed are desirable. I venture to press upon your Lordships that this evil is a very serious one. It was very serious when I first brought the matter to your Lordships' attention last autumn, but it is more serious now. The danger has grown—grown very markedly. The fatal accidents last year have gone up from 5,000 odd to 6,000 odd—something like a 20 per cent. increase in one year. And that is not accounted for by the additional number of cars, for that number has only gone up by 5 per cent. from 1,900,000 to 2,000,000. I think that is a very serious state of things. And the non-fatal accidents have gone up, I think proportionately, but certainly to a very large extent. I think the figure is now, apart from the accidents which are not reported, 164,000 in one year. It is colossal, and it calls for some action by the Legislature, and, if that is impossible, at any rate for some action by this branch of the Legislature, to restrain and diminish these accidents.

One reason impels me very much to press this matter upon your Lordships. We heard a great deal of evidence from representatives of the great motor organisations. I must honestly confess that I was profoundly disappointed by that evidence. I may be wrong, but I do not remember any single constructive suggestion as to a change in the law being made by those witnesses. They talked a great deal about the pedestrian being to blame. The pedestrian has a right to use the road, and he has a right to walk along the road—just as much as the motorist. But it is not only pedestrians, it is all the other vehicles on the road, and the other motorists, that suffer. Then we were told that any attempt to satisfy the authorities as to the skill of the drivers was not only useless but dangerous, it seems to me to throw a great light on the mentality of these gentlemen that they positively thought it right to put before a Committee of your Lordships' House that it was safer to have unskilled than skilled drivers. Then there was a regular phrase that came back and back continually: "speed is not a danger in itself." I do not know that I have ever heard a half truth more irritating than that statement. Of course, in one sense it is true that speed is not a danger in itself. A tornado is not a danger in itself, it is only dangerous if it comes in contact with something else. And, of course, if you take a car on to the Sahara Desert and choose to drive it at any speed you like it will be no danger except to yourself. But to say that great speeds are not dangerous on the ordinary roads of this country seems to me to be a defiance of common sense.

I have one claim to call myself a wise man, and that is that I read Punch with great regularity every week, and I often read the advertisements in Punch and there are a great many of motor cars. I observe that always every one of them—at any rate a large proportion of them—advertise the fact of the great speed at which these motor cars can go: they can go up to fifty, or, I think in one case, seventy miles an hour. I remember reading one advertisement which said that a car had been driven at an average speed of 37 miles an hour from London to Brighton. Anyone who is acquainted with the traffic on the London to Brighton road will agree with me that to drive a car at an average rate of 37 miles an hour—which means an occasional rate of fifty, and probably sixty or seventy miles an hour—is a most reckless and dangerous proceeding. I saw another advertisement in another paper of a car that could go "an honest sixty miles an hour," which meant, I suppose, that it would go sixty miles an hour whatever the obstacles in its way might be.

That conception that the motorist is entitled to drive these gigantic machines, weighing tons, at forty, fifty, sixty miles an hour along the most crowded roads in the country is typical of the fundamental danger and fallacy which we have to combat, and that fundamental danger and fallacy is this, that the roads are made for the motorists and that no one else has any real right to get in the way of the motor driver. I do not for a moment suggest that that is the common view of every motorist. I know many men, and women too, who drive motors with the utmost care and consideration for the other users of the roads, but they are not the people who cause the accidents. The people who cause the accidents are the people who say: "The pedestrians ought to look out for themselves; the way in which they cross the front of our cars is an outrage on our liberty and our rights."

It is for that reason that I venture to ask your Lordships to proceed with this Bill. I will assume, though I do not think it is necessary to assume it as an absolute certainty, still as a great probability I will assume that it will not proceed further than this House, and that, if your Lordships give it a Third Reading, it will not succeed in being passed by the House of Commons. But, even so, I think it would do a very useful thing. I think it would set a standard; it would show that one branch of the Legislature at any rate was very dissatisfied with the state of things, and that certain changes ought to be made. I think it would strengthen the hands of the Courts and of the police. My noble friend Lord Russell has often said to me, both publicly and privately, that it is not so much a changed law that is wanted as a stronger and more vigorous administration. I do not quite agree with him; I think some changes in the law are required. But I do agree with him that there are provisions in the law which might be enforced very usefully and which would make a great difference to the safety of the users of the roads. I feel satisfied that if those who have the duty of administering the law know that your Lordships' House has passed this Bill it will give them a very great motive and incentive to use their powers to the utmost for the protection of the public.

I hesitate to say what I am about to say because it may seem for a young member of the House—though I am not young in years I am in membership of your Lordships' House—an impertinent thing to do, but I venture to say that though there are those who think that politically your Lordships do not stand in a strong position in the country, I do not think that any one doubts that, apart from politics, the debates in this House are treated with the greatest respect by every body in the country and that it is recognised that there are a number of members in this House who are as qualified as anybody in the country to express an opinion on such a subject as this both legally, as men of common sense and as men who are familiar with the life of the country. It is for that reason that I very earnestly hope that your Lordships will accept the suggestion I make and will proceed to consider this Bill in Committee. We can consider it. We have plenty of time in which to do that, and we can make Amendments in it. Your Lordships will be able to modify it in any way you think right. This is a case in which the evil is very clearly proved. It is admitted by my colleagues as much as by anybody that it is a very serious matter and one which urgently calls for attention. They urge strongly that the Government should deal with it; but the Government can do nothing at the moment. In those circumstances with such an evil presented to the Legislature, I submit very respectfully to your Lordships that it is our duty to take that evil into consideration, and if we are satisfied that the proposals I venture to bring forward would do something to mitigate this very serious evil, it is our duty to pass them through this House whatever may be the consequences, whether they pass into law or not. It is the duty of a Legislature to remedy evils that are brought before it. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

LORD SANDHURST had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, to leave out "now" and add to the Motion "this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, nobody regrets more than I that in the unfortunate absence, owing to an accident, of the noble Earl who presided over this Committee it falls to my lot to move the rejection of my noble friend's Motion. I agree with him completely in what he has said about the misfortunes that dogged this Committee. The only difference I have with him is as to what I regard as the climax of our misfortunes—that when we came to consider the evidence on the eve of the Easter vacation with a view to arriving at a decision, my noble friend was himself absent, owing to his being a victim of the then prevailing epidemic, and that we did not have the advantage of his advice at that stage, which was undoubtedly most unfortunate. At the same time, honestly, I do not think that his advice would have affected the opinion of the Committee. My noble friend Lord Danesfort had also been the victim of illness throughout the time that the evidence was given, and although he was able to attend that meeting he had not heard the evidence, and I think I am right in saying that he expressed no very definite opinion. But the three members who had heard the evidence were unanimous in the course which they recommended and which is embodied in the fifth paragraph of the Report—that in which the Committee reluctantly recommend that the Bill should not be proceeded with.

It had already appeared in the course of the evidence, that if attention were paid to the evidence which was given very little would be left of the Bill as originally drafted. At that meeting a fresh draft was produced under the auspices of my noble friend for the consideration of the Committee. May I remind your Lordships of what took place on Second Reading? It was evident on Second Reading that there was a very strong feeling in your Lordships' House that something ought to be done to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities that occur on the roads. At the same time, it was equally evident that the strongest supporters of the desire of my noble friend that something should be done differed as to the methods by which it should be done. I remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster made some really damaging criticisms of some of the suggestions in the Bill, and it was obvious that there was no measure of unanimity in the House as to the proper remedies to be applied. The Bill was then referred to a Select Committee, and it was certainly my understanding that what was desired was that the Select Committee should agree, if possible, upon some principles which could be adopted by the House with such a degree of unanimity that there might be some chance at all events of legislation following.

When we came to look at the redrafted Bill, it appeared to us to present almost as many opportunities for difference and discussion as its predecessor, and it had already provoked several amendments from members of the Committee. In the result the Committee were impressed with the belief, which I am convinced was well founded, that had we tried to amend the Bill presented to us we should still have failed to present to the House anything like an uncontroversial measure which might have a chance of passing into law in the present Session. It seemed to me that there was no alternative but that which presented itself to us—namely, to recommend that the Bill be not further proceeded with, and, further, to express disappointment that the Ministry of Transport had not made a little better speed with the Bill which they had presented in draft two years ago.

There are many valuable provisions in that Bill. Among others there is one which I think, by some oversight, was not referred to in the Report—a provision which would enable us to deal with the question of dazzle whenever it passes from the experimental stage in which it is at present. It is to be hoped—certainly the Committee expresses the hope as strongly as it can—that that Bill will be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment, and that if the whole of the Bill cannot be proceeded with, then so much of it as will conduce to public safety should be presented and proceeded with with such expedition as the Government can command. It seemed to the Committee, and, if I may say so, it seemed to me, that that expression of opinion is sufficient to meet the purpose which my noble friend has referred to—the purpose of saying what the House thinks of the seriousness of the issue which he has raised, and the urgency and the importance of dealing with the matter. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the paper.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months ")—(Lord Sandhurst.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

My Lords, this Bill has come back to your Lordships' House from the mausoleum to which you consigned it when you decided it should be made a subject of consideration by a Select Committee. At the time I pointed out to your Lordships that it was impossible, if that were done, that this Bill could ever be effectively dealt with by your Lordships' House during the currency of the present Parliament, and I took the view, which I expressed then and again later, that to send to Select Committees Bills which deal with matters that should be within the competence of us all, and to substitute discussion between five people for the deliberations of this House is to deny members their Parliamentary rights. This Bill is an exact illustration of what I said. The services that have been rendered by this Select Committee are no doubt very valuable, and the discussion is of great service, but I ask you to look and see what took place. To begin with, there were five members of the Committee, and they appear one by one to have suffered accidents, and in one of the only critical Divisions I see my noble friend Lord Cecil was in a minority of one, and I think the majority were two.

I have always admired his courage and desire to imitate it. But just think. That is the discussion that you are having about a matter that affects the public generally—affects every man and every woman who walks about the streets—and you say that you are unable to discuss it here, that this House is unfit to decide a question as to what should be the proper laws to enforce upon people using motor vehicles. As I cannot help thinking, you evade your responsibility; and this is the result. No one is for a moment under any illusion as to the position of this Bill if the noble Viscount's Motion is carried, and I will not desert him even though he be in a minority of one. If his Motion is carried we know perfectly well nothing could happen. The only thing that will result will be that this House will say that it has desired once more to resume control over this measure, and, in the public interest, to hear, to discuss and to decide the various questions that have been raised by the noble Viscount and by others for securing public safety in the streets. I am anxious that that should be done with as little delay as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who has just spoken, said the question of dazzle lights is still in an experimental stage. It is. Only within the last two months I have seen a report of no less than three people killed because of the existence of dazzle lights. I suppose the experiment must still go on, but it appears to me it is an exaggerated form of vivisection that you should require to go on slaying people in the highway by reason of dazzle lights in order that you may prove they are dangerous. Still, the matter must proceed.

I cannot help feeling the Government have really shirked their duty in this matter. It is a matter of enormous consequence. That they admit, but they neither adopt the noble Viscount's Bill nor permit us to discuss it, nor help him to do anything to secure that it should be speedily considered. On the contrary, as I have already said, they consign this Bill to a limbo from which it never could emerge alive, and now we are doing something that is really nothing but dissecting a dead body. None the less I am prepared to support the noble Viscount and at least I can do it consistently. I protested against this Bill going to a Select Committee, as I trust I shall protest again when your Lordships refer to Committees Bills that have neither special technical matters at issue nor are subject to any of the considerations that need special and separate treatment.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Viscount, in moving his Motion, dealt at considerable length with the merits of this Bill, both with those which others recognise as merits and with the peculiar merits to which he attached importance. I do not propose to do that on this occasion, because it hardly seems to be suitable. I rather want to deal with what happened to this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that when we came to the Committee stage I expressed the opinion that, owing to the difficulty of amending it and making it into anything like a useful Bill, I had come to the conclusion that it would be just as well if it did not proceed, or, if it did, that it should go to a Select Committee to be considered there. The noble Viscount does not in the least misrepresent the position when he says that what we rather hoped was that there might emerge from that Select Committee some quite short Bill containing four or five agreed matters upon which legislation would be useful, and which we could at any rate pass with practically universal assent, leaving it to what hope it might have in another place. The Committee met and, as your Lordships have heard, it was pursued from the first by misfortune. The members of that Committee were at one time or another all absent through no fault of their own. I think I was not absent, but I certainly ought to have been on one occasion, and the last meeting of the Committee, the only one at which all the members of the Committee were present, was held at the bedside of the Chairman who had broken his leg. That was the only meeting which all the five members were able to attend. The Committee certainly was pursued by misfortune.

The noble Viscount in the course of discussion said he would prepare a new Bill, which we all anticipated would be a Bill somewhat on the lines that I have sketched, a short and agreed Bill; but the Bill which was presented to us was a Bill longer than the original Bill, and containing all those most objectionable features of the old Bill, such as the humps in the road, the mechanical contrivances and various other matters. It was a great misfortune that when that Bill came up for consideration the noble Viscount himself, through illness, was unable to be there, and we did, with some reluctance, as there was no knowledge as to when he would be available—

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My noble friend must not say that. He may not have known, but I told the Chairman exactly what my position was, and that I should be prepared the next day, or a day or two afterwards, to deal with the whole matter, either in my own house, as we did with the Chairman, or in the Committee room. There was no ambiguity as to my position; I earnestly desired that the Bill should be proceeded with.

EARL RUSSELL

Of course the noble Viscount is quite correct. The Chairman no doubt had that information. It was unfortunate we had to deal with the Bill in the absence of the noble Viscount, who, of course, was the protagonist and the person to defend it. And the four members of the Committee who were then present did come unanimously to the conclusion that it was no use recommending the House to proceed with the Bill.

LORD DANESFORT

May I interrupt the noble Earl? I was not one of those who came to the conclusion that the Bill should not be proceeded with. I came down to the Committee in the full expectation that the Committee would be adjourned in order to allow of the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I came down a few minutes late and I found it was all over.

EARL RUSSELL

Very well, now we have it—one member absent ill, and another member late and unable to vote on the matter, but the three members of the Committee who did take an effective part in the discussion unanimously decided that it would be of no use to recommend your Lordships to carry the Bill any further in the circumstances. I am still of that opinion. The Bill is not, I think, susceptible of useful amendment without completely turning it inside out, and there is the further point that at this period of the Session it cannot serve any useful purpose and nothing really advantageous could result even if your Lordships' House did succeed in passing the Bill. I think it would be very unusual when you have sent a Bill to a Select Committee which has taken evidence and the members of which have applied their minds—however inadequately you think they have applied their collective minds—to the consideration of the question, and I think it would be very unfortunate also, to take the step of turning down the Report of the Committee and committing the Bill now to a Committee of the Whole House and beginning all over again. I do not want to discuss the merits of the Bill, but merely to point out the situation as it presents itself to me.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I have some hesitation in putting my own views before your Lordships' House because, as my noble friend Viscount Cecil has already told you, I was included in the list of those casualties to which the Committee was unfortunately subjected. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred in very picturesque terms and somewhat more detail to the misfortunes which attended the meetings of that Committee, but I venture to think that the greater those misfortunes the more reason there is for your Lordships to consider the provisions of the Bill, because, as he has pointed out with great clearness, it was quite impossible owing to the absence of members of the Committee from time to time to get the real views of the five members of that Select Committee. As that was an impossibility it appears to me to afford strong and additional reason why your Lordships should consider the Bill yourselves in Committee.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Earl has corrected me, so perhaps he wall allow me to remind him that at the meeting at which the Report now before your Lordships' House was settled the whole of the five members were present.

LORD DANESFORT

Quite so, and they did not agree. Trouble arose at previous meetings when important questions were settled in the absence of one or two or three members of the Committee. Therefore I think when Earl Russell appeals to your Lordships to accept the verdict of that Committee he will appeal to you in vain, because the verdict of that Committee, owing to those misfortunes which have been so graphically described, is not as valuable as it might otherwise have been. I venture respectfully to urge that this Bill should proceed to a Committee of your Lordships' House. With the Amendments which have been suggested by Viscount Cecil, in accordance as he has pointed out with the views expressed by the Committee, or largely in accordance with those views, and with such Amendments as your Lordships may think fit to introduce into the Bill, I believe that it would be an exceedingly valuable measure. I say that even though it may not pass through the other House this Session. In any case it would not be a final Bill. I agree that it would not contain all the provisions which the present Government have under consideration, or which the Committee they have set up have under consideration, and which the present Government will undoubtedly bring in after the Election.

Therefore the fact that it is not a final Bill is no reason at all why your Lordships should not pass the Bill and express your views upon this very grave and serious question. To my mind the seriousness and gravity of it cannot be exaggerated. Viscount Cecil has already given figures of fatal accidents which grow steadily from year to year and have now attained the enormous figure of 6,138 for the year 1928. It must be remembered that those are fatal accidents, and that in addition there are between 150,000 and 200,000 non-fatal accidents. No one, in that state of things, can exaggerate the seriousness of the question or the urgency of dealing with it in some form. Indeed, the Committee themselves in the closing paragraph of their Report admit the extreme urgency of the case and the necessity for dealing with it, and they make an urgent recommendation that the Minister of Transport should present his own Roads Bill to Parliament without delay.

EARL RUSSELL

Hear, hear.

LORD DANESFORT

It cannot be done this Session, but, as I say, it can be done, I hope, in June. Although I did not hear the evidence I read most of it, and like my noble friend Viscount Cecil I was really somewhat shocked by the character of the evidence which was given by some of those who professed to represent, perhaps did represent, motoring organisations. One of the most serious and I think one of the most reckless points in that evidence was the perpetual repetition, as Viscount Cecil has said, of the statement that speed is not a danger in itself. Well, I can only say that that is not my personal experience. I am one of that despised class of pedestrians—despised, at any rate, by many motorists, more in London, I am glad to say, than in the country. As one of that despised class it is a wonder to me that I am alive, because owing to the extreme speed with which motor cars and especially motor cycles are driven in London they come down upon you, unless you are watching very closely, at a speed which is very difficult to estimate and annihilate you unless you are fortunate enough to get out of the way in time.

When I am told that speed is not a danger I ask myself why it is that in the days before motors, when traffic was almost entirely horse-drawn, accidents were enormously fewer. In those days you could walk about London and along country roads with a certain degree of safety. Why? It was not that the drivers of horses and vehicles were more careful about the safety of pedestrians. The reason was that the speed was moderate and you could get out of the way. The reason why there, has been this enormous increase of fatal and other accidents is that the speed is so great that unless you are specially careful, or perhaps I should say specially active and energetic, you cannot get out of the way in time. When I hear that sort of evidence brought forward by persons who profess themselves to be experts putting forward the view which they say is held by large associations of motorists that speed is not a danger, I do say that it constitutes a new element of urgency and a new reason why your Lordships should express your opinion and do your utmost by passing the Bill in some shape or form to correct that really grave, urgent, terrible danger.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, and I think Earl Russell repeated it, that it would be no use your Lordships passing a Bill of this sort because it could not pass through the other House before the Session ends. Let us assume that that is the case. Surely, the important fact of your Lordships having passed a Bill would have two extremely valuable results. In the first place I am convinced it would make the drivers of motor cars far more careful than they are at present to avoid endangering life and limb, and in the second place it would, as I think Viscount Cecil pointed out, be a very great assistance to magistrates in the administration of justice. The debates in this House, and the fact that the Bill had passed this House, would draw their attention more forcibly and clearly to the real state of affairs. In those two ways I think it would be of the utmost value if your Lordships should pass a Bill of this kind, and I earnestly hope, since the Select Committee unfortunately, by the admission of all, largely broke down and did not attain the object that your Lordships had in view in appointing it, that you will now take into consideration in Committee of the Whole House a measure framed on moderate and almost agreed lines such as the noble Viscount has indicated.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I also shall be extremely brief on this matter. An observation was made by Lord Russell which seemed to me to be the most important that fell from the lips of any speaker in the course of this discussion. It was to the effect that in any event, and whatever we decide, there is not the smallest chance of any effective progress being made with the Bill in this Session of Parliament. No speaker has contradicted or could contradict that opinion if he had the slightest knowledge of the present condition of Parliamentary business. To me, then, the matter would appear to be extremely simple. Shall we sit here for about two hours to-night, or perhaps three—the eloquence of some of my noble friends is not easily exhausted—and then have an equally satisfactory Report stage on a later occasion, when every one of us knows that there is not the least possibility of the Bill becoming law?

The noble Lord who has just spoken said that it would be a very good thing to put on record the opinion of this House. I cannot see that it is at all a good thing to put the opinion of this House on record when it produces not the slightest impression and when there is no chance at all of any effective action being taken. On the contrary, I would recommend another course. When, as the friends of the noble Earl on the front Opposition Bench are never tired of assuring us, they come into that dazzling kingdom which awaits them, when they come in with an independent majority, then will be the opportunity for the noble Viscount to re-introduce this Bill. I do not know whether this is a good Bill or a bad Bill. I feel that prima facie the process of digging trenches in villages in order to dissuade excessive speed in the drivers of motor cars does not attract me, but there may be some subtle arguments that have not occurred to my mind that can be urged on behalf of this proposal. But think how much better it would be that a matter so important should come to a Parliament of unexhausted vitality and youth, and that such a Parliament should consider these great social questions and decide whether or not this and analogous proposals ought to pass into law.

So far as we are concerned, we are protected by the Constitution from the risk of perishing which paralyses with attrition the members of another place, but even we might wait until the new Parliament. I recall a memorable saying of the late Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson in his account of the extremely diverting supper party which followed immediately on the escape of St. Ives from the castle of Edinburgh, when he said to his mingled guests at a moment of inconvenient detection: "Let us die, my dear creatures, but do not let us be ridiculous." I would venture equally to say to your Lordships that we may not die at the moment, though the House of Commons will certainly suffer very considerable mortality in the near future, but do not let us undertake a wholly unnecessary labour which can serve no useful purpose now or hereafter. Let us rather gracefully proceed to wind up the Session.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)

My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take this opportunity of indicating the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, has told us again that he is of opinion that this Bill should have been discussed in Committee by your Lordships instead of being sent to a Select Committee. I do not know if the noble and learned Lord is an expert in these matters, but I know that my noble friend who sits below me does not claim to be an expert, and I do feel that a Select Committee has had far better opportunities of testing evidence and of calling before them individuals and representatives of associations who are capable of explaining these matters and of giving their reasons for and against the arguments that have been put forward by my noble friend. I admit that my knowledge of this mater is not extensive. My noble friend told us of an incident in which a person in a small can infringed one of the elementary rules of motoring by endeavouring to overtake a car round a bend. I feel sure, though my slender knowledge of the law is naturally far less than that of my noble friend, that if such a case had come before the magistrate it would have been dealt with on the severest lines on the ground of dangerous driving. These however, are matters of detail with which I do not desire, nor do I feel that I should have the right, to weary your Lordships, for we are all familiar with the details of this measure, which has been before your Lordships on more occasions than one.

Your Lordships will remember that in the course of the debate on Second Reading I expressed the concurrence of the Government with the view that was put forward so eloquently, if I may say so, by the noble Viscount, that a measure dealing with the regulation of motor transport was urgently needed; but I added that, while we agreed with the principle of the noble Viscount's proposals, we were disposed to oppose them on two very serious grounds. In the first place, we considered that in themselves they were hardly of the character called for by the present traffic situation. Certain of them were considered to be impracticable, while in their general tone they were disposed to be, if I may use the expression, unsympathetic in their attitude towards motor transport itself. We inclined to the view that what is needed is a measure which is imbued with a spirit of full appreciation of the necessary growth of the motor industry and the modern means of road transport, but which, at the same time, so regulates the traffic that it reduces to a minimum those dangers which have followed upon the introduction of the motor car, which are obviously inseparable from its continued development and which for the past two years have exacted so terrible a toll of life on our roads.

The second and main objection which I ventured to put forward on behalf of the Government against proceeding with this Bill was the fact that the Royal Commission on Transport, which is presided over by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, is already examining all the questions that are dealt with in this Bill, and it seemed to us that it would be obviously premature and undesirable to proceed with legislation pending the receipt of the Report of that Commission. As your Lordships will remember, we did not press our opposition to the Second Reading of the noble Viscount's Bill on the understanding that we should, if possible, thereafter obtain from the Royal Commission an Interim Report on the matters covered by the noble Viscount's Bill within a reasonable space of time, or if that turned out to be impracticable, that we would agree to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen informed us that the Commission hoped to be able to report this summer. However, the noble Viscount deprecated any delay, and your Lordships concurred in the view which he expressed, when the Committee stage was reached, that it would be useful to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. As your Lordships are aware, the matter was left entirely to your Lordships to decide, and you did decide that it should be referred to a Select Committee. We have heard certain details of the chequered career which that Select Committee pursued, but nevertheless a great deal of evidence was taken. None of your Lordships have really had an opportunity of studying that evidence, which was given by authorities who are recognised authorities in dealing with this subject. The Select Committee, having had this matter referred to them by your Lordships, came to a very definite conclusion at the end.

In detailing the various stages of the history of this measure I desire to make it perfectly clear that the Government, as indeed I have said on other occasions, fully recognise the urgency of the problem of the regulation of road traffic; that we are in no sense careless of the loss of life and of the injury to the person which is a truly deplorable feature of present day road traffic. I know your Lordships will agree with me that in every step that we have taken in regard to this measure we have shown ourselves not one whit less sensible than is the noble Viscount of the loss and suffering which the lamentable and increasing number of accidents on our roads has caused to every class of the community. We are fully alive to the dangers and to the necessity of finding means to minimise them and make the roads as safe as we possibly can for the pedestrian and the motorist alike. We cannot help recognising, however, that the problem is by no means one easy of solution. In fact it is one of immense complexity. Two years ago the Minister of Transport issued a draft Road Traffic Bill for general consideration and for general examination, and, as your Lordships are aware, the Government later appointed a Royal Commission to examine this question. Although I am quite aware that we may have laid ourselves open to the charge of being dilatory, I do not think that that charge can be sustained, and it will only be made by persons who ignore the real difficulties and complexities of the problem with which we are faced.

The Report of the Select Committee on the Bill is now in your Lordships' hands, and I am bound to point out that it is favourable to the view which, on behalf of the Government, I ventured to ex press on the Second Reading of this Bill—namely, that although obviously a measure is required that measure is certainly not the measure which has been proposed by the noble Viscount. The Select Committee have found themselves unable satisfactorily to deal with the Bill by way of amendment so as to meet the requirements of the situation, and they have definitely advised your Lordships, therefore, not to proceed further with it. Whilst we are, of course, entirely in your Lordships' hands, we find it very difficult to oppose that conclusion, which is represented by the proposal made by the noble Lord who sits opposite, Lord Sandhurst.

Although the Bill may be dropped, I would venture to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, that his efforts to arouse the public to a sense of the urgency of the question have by no moans been made in vain. The Report of the Select Committee is now in the hands of the public, it has been commented on by the newspapers, and it will arouse fun her comment. He has, moreover, secured from the Committee an expression of the view that the Government should take immediate steps. That is very clearly set out in paragraph 6. I can assure my noble friend that the Government will not ignore the advice which the Committee have given to them, although they are quite unable, in view of the forthcoming Dissolution of Parliament and the comparative nearness of a Report from the Commission to Parliament, formally to present a Bill to Parliament themselves now. Meanwhile, pending the General Election and the reassembly of the new Parliament, we shall await the promised Interim Report of the Royal Commission, and if we are returned to power, as I confidently hope and expect we shall be, I can definitely assure your Lordships that in the early days of the new Administration a Bill will be introduced dealing with these matters, when we shall be fortified and assisted by the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

As the noble Viscount knows, I have a very deep respect for his political knowledge and also for his political experience, but I cannot believe that it would materially add to the strength of his protest, nor do I believe it would steel the heart of a single magistrate in dealing with offending motorists, if we were to proceed to amend this Bill as he proposes. Further, I would ask your Lordships to consider very carefully—and this point has been very well put by a noble Lord who spoke earlier—whether it is right that we should ignore the recommendations of our own Select Committee and attempt to amend a measure which we have been so clearly advised is not susceptible of satisfactory amendment. Moreover, I cannot agree with my noble friend that the mere passage of a Bill of this character by your Lordships—a Bill passed, as it would be, on the distinct understanding that it never can become law—would exercise any additional influence upon public opinion. We are naturally in your Lordships' hands, but I would venture to press on the noble Viscount not to urge further consideration of this Bill in your Lordships' House, but, if I might say so, to rest content with the considerable measure of success which he has achieved in the attainment of his object. That object, naturally, is to awaken the people of this country and the Government to the urgent and imperative need for fresh traffic legislation.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Londonderry has made a speech of great force and great interest, and has begged me not to proceed with the Bill further. It is not for me to say whether the Bill should proceed or not: that is entirely for your Lordships' House. But what I do feel myself is that it is very difficult for any member of the Legislature, in face of the very grave evils that exist, not to take every possible course that suggests itself to him to try to check those evils in some way or other. That seems to me the course which any self-respecting member of this House, or of the other House, is bound to take. The whole question to my mind is: What will be most likely to diminish the number of helpless persons who are slaughtered and maimed on the roads by these terrible accidents? Since the appearance of the last figures the newspapers have published rather more freely than they had been doing particulars of the accidents which occur. I am sure that if your Lordships read them, as I thought it my duty to do, you will agree with me as to the extreme urgency of this problem.

Well, the whole question is, what is the best thing for me to do in this state of things, to try to check that evil? Should I be doing best by accepting my noble friend's suggestion, or by asking your Lordships to come to a decision as to whether you will at any rate put this Bill through your Lordships' House? I cannot feel that I should do any good by assenting to its withdrawal. My noble friend tells me that a measure of this kind, if the present Government remain in office after the Election, will be one of its earliest steps. After all, he can only pledge the present Government. I do not know what any other Government may be, and I do not know whether they will take the same view. And it has happened, even to this Government, confidently to anticipate their belief that they would be able to pass a Bill in the early stages of the following Session and not even to be able to produce a Bill at all. I do not feel very much encouraged by that promise.

After all, what is the principle that we ought to follow, as my noble friend thinks, in approaching this question? He says we ought to approach it imbued with a full appreciation of the importance of the motor trade, and, subject to that, we ought to reduce to the minimum the dangers of the road. If he will forgive my saying so, that does not seem to me the spirit in which we ought to approach a grave evil of this kind. In those circumstances I think there would be an advantage if your Lordships were good enough to pass this Bill. I cannot agree with my noble friend that it would produce no effect upon public opinion; I am certain it would produce an immense effect on public opinion, and it would produce an immense effect on those who are charged with the administration of the law. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that nothing that is at all possible at this minute would be equally serviceable to the public as the passage of this Bill, amended, if you like, through this House.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said that if we passed this Bill we should render ourselves ridiculous. I am afraid I wholly disagree with him. I am quite sure that is not the view that would be held by any considerable number of his fellow citizens in this country. I am sure they would say that we should be doing what we thought to be our duty and doing our best to cope with a tremendous evil. I cannot agree with him that to do it is unnecessary, or futile, or useless. I think it is the clear duty of a Legislature to pass a measure which provides a remedy for an evil, and I do not think that the consideration of what another branch of the Legislature may or may not do is one that ought to affect too much the action of this House.