ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 12 December 1929 vol 75 cc1193-264

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I should like to take the opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which seems to have arisen from something I said on Second Reading. In the summary of the debate in The Times of the following day there appeared words to the effect that I revealed that the retention of the speed limit for motor coaches was inspired by the desire to divert would-be rapid travellers to the railways. I am afraid that my words must have been singularly ill-chosen if they conveyed that to your Lordships. That was not in the least what I intended to say. I merely desired to point out that there are two alternative methods of travel—one by road and one by rail—and that if complaints were made by would-be passengers, who of course are fully entitled to choose either method of conveyance, on account of, shall I say the comparatively low speed, at any rate on account, let me say, of the new fixed limit of speed for motor coaches because they were too low, the answer was that there was an alternative method available. That was all I intended to convey. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Ministry of Transport or of the Government to drive travellers either on to the one way or the other. I am sorry if my words were so ill-chosen as to give rise to misapprehension.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Motor vehicles to which Part I applies.

1.—(1) This Part of this Act shall apply to all mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads (in this Act referred to as "motor vehicles") and to vehicles (in this Act referred to as "trailers") drawn by motor vehicles:

Provided that this Part of this Act shall not apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles the use of which is authorised or regulated by special Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act, unless the special Act or order so provides.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "intended or adapted for use" and insert "used." The noble Viscount said: This is only a small drafting Amendment. The Bill as the noble Earl realises, is a Bill for the regulation of traffic on roads and I see no reason why motors which are being manufactured specially for export abroad need conform to any particular conditions which he desires to make for vehicles used on our own roads. He would be amply protected, I think, by the use of the word "used."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("intended or adapted for use") and insert ("used").—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not think that we can accept this Amendment. I am not quite sure whether the noble Viscount has fully realised all the possible implications. The words in the Bill are intended only to describe the sort of vehicle to which the Bill shall apply and there is nothing at all in those words to prevent motors being constructed which do not agree with Clause 2 provided they are not used on the roads, because the words at the beginning of Clause 3 are:— It shall not be lawful to use on any road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with the regulations. If vehicles are intended for export and are not going to be used in this country, they may be constructed in any way that is thought desirable. If the words proposed by the noble Viscount were adopted the subsection would read "mechanically propelled vehicles used on roads." It might then be quite possible to have, for example, an aeroplane which descended on a road and "taxied" along it. That would be a vehicle mechanically propelled. I think it is desirable to retain the words because they definitely confine it to the kind of thing we are talking about.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I do not press it. I was hoping to help the noble Earl.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: I move to omit this proviso because although this is a Road Traffic Bill, one of its first provisions is to exclude an important and increasingly large section of traffic to be met with on the highways. I can see no reason why, for instance, trolley vehicles should not be brought under the same regulation as all other mechanically-propelled vehicles. I cannot see why the driver should not be licensed and be of the required age. Moreover, it is perfectly possible that offences of dangerous driving and driving while under the influence of drink and so on may occur in the case of a trolley vehicle as in the case of a motor car. If Part I is not entirely appropriate, it is thought that perhaps some of the clauses might be specially applied to these vehicles.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("vehicles") to the end of subsection (1).—(Earl Howe.)

LORD ASKWITH

I am sorry to disagree entirely with the noble Earl upon this clause. I think he has misunderstood the meaning of it. It does not exclude the whole of these vehicles that he mentions, but it allows those authorities and others who have special Acts of Parliament to retain certain powers. Those who are without such powers under Acts repealed by this Bill would still be without them, but those who have them ought to be allowed to retain them. The views I am putting forward are those of the Tramways and Light Railways Association, which includes all the electric light railways, tramways, trolley vehicles and statutory omnibus companies in the United Kingdom. They have the strongest objection to this Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I think the noble Earl who moved this Amendment has really failed to appreciate the position. The vehicles to which he referred are regulated by the Tramways Act, 1870, and in connection with that Act there are special orders, by-laws and regulations made by the Minister of Transport. Except for the fact that trams happen to run on the public roads, it would be quite as reasonable to attempt to regulate railways under this Bill. These are statutory companies with definite statutory powers, and it would be quite improper to bring them within the four corners of this Bill.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Might I ask the noble Earl whether the provisions regarding drunkenness, for instance, apply to the drivers of the tramcars or trolleys? If they do not, I see no reason why a clause should not be put in later providing that the conditions—quite rightly very onerous—imposed upon drivers of motor cars should not equally apply to the man found drunk in charge of a tramcar, who might be a much more serious danger than the man in charge of a motor car. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that point.

EARL RUSSELL

If the noble Viscount can devise a workable Amendment for that purpose which does not conflict with the whole machinery by which this Bill operates, we might consider it. But he realises, I am sure, that all sorts of statutory conditions are already imposed.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I agree.

EARL RUSSELL

These conditions prevail under the existing Act, and I am not quite sure that the better method would not be to amend the Tramways Act in the sense in which the noble Viscount desires rather than to insert a provision which really has no place in this Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Classification of motor vehicles.

2.—(1) Motor vehicles shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and the regulations, be divided into the following classes:—

(d) Heavy motor cars; that is to say, mechanically propelled vehicles (not being vehicles classified under this section as motor cars) which are constructed themselves to carry a load or passengers, and the weight of which unladen exceeds two tons and a half:

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to add to paragraph (d) of subsection (1) "but does not exceed seven tons and a quarter or such greater weight as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulations under this Part of this Act." The noble Viscount said: Subject to anything that the noble Earl has to say, I think this Amendment would be an improvement. Its object, as the noble Earl will see, is quite simple. The present prescribed weight is 7¼ tons, and I think it would not be right to allow this to be diminished by regulation. That is the point raised by my Amendment, if the noble Earl will consider it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 40, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

I really think that this Amendment is not necessary. The maximum weight is now prescribed by regulation and is, as the noble Viscount says, 7¼ tons. It is not at all likely that this will be reduced, and it certainly will not be reduced unless there is very good reason shown. It certainly would not be reduced except after full consultation with all the interests concerned. We think it very undesirable to tie the Minister's hands in any way. Latitude is required in these cases, and I should very much prefer that this Amendment were not adopted. I may say that, though it will not make any difference at the moment, I can conceive that there might be circumstances in which it would be inconvenient. On the whole I think that, with changing circumstances, it is better to leave the thing as fluid as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Prohibition of motor vehicles not complying with regulations as to construction, &c.

3.—(1) it shall not be lawful to use on any road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with the regulations applicable to the class or description of vehicles to which the vehicle belongs, as to the construction, weight and use thereof:

Provided that the Minister may by order authorise, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the use on roads of special motor vehicles or trailers, or special types of motor vehicles or trailers, which are constructed cither for special purposes or for tests or trials, and of new or improved types of motor vehicles and trailers whether wheeled or wheel-less.

LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1), after "lawful," to insert "except in respect of vehicles constructed within twelve months from the coming into force of any regulations made under Section twenty-eight (Regulations) of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to safeguard existing vehicles to a certain extent, in case the Minister of Transport should make some arbitrary regulation. I need hardly point out that there are a great number of vehicles under construction, that the present regulations are extremely strict and that it would be very unfortunate if many of these vehicles were condemned in consequence of regulations made by the Minister. The period of time mentioned in the Amendment is twelve months, so that there may be time to provide for vehicles under construction when the regulations are issued.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 10, after ("lawful") insert the said words.—(Lord Newton.)

EARL RUSSELL

I think this Amendment is moved through a quite unnecessary fear of the action of the Minister. There is a suggestion that the Minister would be likely to act in an unreasonable way. That, as I said on Second Reading, has never been the practice of the Department. They have always given the fullest consideration to all the representations made to them and in any regulations which have been made a saving clause has always been inserted regarding vehicles in existence and in course of manufacture, where such a clause seemed desirable. The manufacturing interests are always consulted. Under Clause 28 there is a statutory obligation to consult them. I really think that it is unnecessary to tie the Minister's hands by this Amendment. No one, I think, in the trade has ever had occasion to complain of the action taken at the Ministry in these matters.

LORD NEWTON

I am aware of the provision in Clause 28, but I thought it might be more useful that the words I suggest should appear in the Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

They are unnecessary.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I really think that the Minister might make a slight concession here. The point was raised on the Second Reading. Those of us who have Amendments down have not been unduly hard in regard to those that we have moved up to the present. We have accepted the Minister's explanations. The noble Earl tells us that no previous Minister has done anything to which any one could reasonably object under this important provision, but at the same time we are now practically codifying the law; we are giving the Minister very much greater powers and, so far as I can see, there could be no possible objection to accepting the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. The noble Earl says it is in accordance with the practice. No doubt that is true, but I have had representations made to me from manufacturers that large numbers of these vehicles are under construction now. It is said that the Minister will not make regulations without consulting the manufacturers, but he might consult them and yet might make regulations which involved vast expense in altering machines that were nearly finished. That would be quite unfair. I do ask the noble Earl to concede this point to us. We naturally want to carry the Bill through and to improve it. I ask him to agree to the Amendment of my noble friend behind me.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble Earl says that this Amendment is not necessary because he is quite certain that the Minister will behave reasonably. How does he know that? How does he know that there will be the same Minister within the next three months and that the new Minister will act reasonably? I think it would be far better to accept the Amendment, which ensures that vehicles which are now under construction can be used without leaving it to the discretion of the Minister, who has quite enough to do without being bothered with these things.

EARL RUSSELL

If the view of your Lordships to-night is that voiced by the noble Lord who has just spoken, that Ministers are likely to behave unreasonably, you may think it worth while to put in this Amendment. If it is pressed I do not propose at this stage to resist it. I merely say that I think probably manufacturers will do quite as well or better under the present practice than under any hard and fast statutory arrangement. If the noble Viscount presses the Amendment, I will not resist it at this stage, but, of course, you will allow me to consider the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Licensing of drivers, &c.

4.—(1) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle on a road unless he is the holder of a licence, and a person shall not employ any person to drive a motor vehicle on a road unless the person so employed is the holder of a licence, and if any person acts in contravention of this provision he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act as to the physical fitness of applicants for licences, the licensing authority shall on payment of a fee of five shillings grant a licence to any person applying for it in the prescribed manner who makes the prescribed declaration as to age and as to the subsistence of any order of a court made in respect of him under this Part of this Act, unless the applicant is disqualified under the provisions of this Part of this Act for holding or obtaining a licence.

(5) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, produce his licence, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds:

Provided that if within three days after the production of his licence was so required the licensee produces the licence in person at such police station as may be specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.

(6) A person shall be disqualified for obtaining a licence—

1. (a) if he is under sixteen years of age;
2. (b) while another licence granted to him is in force whether the licence is suspended or not;

(7) In any proceedings the fact that a licence has been granted to a person shall be evidence that that person for the purpose of obtaining that licence made a declaration that he was not under the age of twenty-one, seventeen or sixteen, as the case may be, and a declaration that he was not disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence.

(8) In this Part of this Act the expression "licence" means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under this section, and the expression "licensing authority" means the council of the county or county borough in which the applicant for a licence resides.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the second "is" and to insert "was at the time when he was engaged for employment." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the owner who engages a man for employment as a driver shall see that his licence is in order, and that this should be a liability upon the employer. The idea is that subsequently it should he the duty of the driver to keep his licence in order.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 31, leave out ("is") and insert ("was at the time when he was engaged for employment").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

It is the duty of the employer to see that his driver has a licence at all times and not only on the day when he engages him. This provision has been in force ever since 1903, and has caused no difficulty, and we are quite unable to see any reason for amending it. I do not think this Amendment ought to be accepted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (2), before "physical fitness," to insert "competence, knowledge and." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a question of some importance—namely, whether a licence should be granted to anybody who presents a demand for it, coupled with a fee of 5s., and, if the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, a declaration that he is physically fit. I suggest in this Amendment that there ought to be some precaution taken, either by examination or in some other proper way, to show that he has some competence and knowledge—competence to drive, and knowledge of the rules of the road, and things of that kind. To make this Amendment intelligible, it ought to be read in connection with my Amendment which appears at the bottom of the next page of the Marshalled List of Amendments, and which says, at the beginning of Clause 5, that on an application the applicant "shall satisfy the licensing authority in the prescribed manner." I have not felt it possible for an unofficial member of the House to set out all the details which ought to be the conditions on which the examination or other test is held. I think that must be left for regulations, but so long as it is done reasonably we shall be satisfied that he is competent to drive a motor vehicle with reasonable skill, and has an adequate knowledge of the rules of the road and other directions which may be issued by the Minister for the guidance of users of the highway. That is the broad purpose of this Amendment.

I confess that my own feeling is that it is quite obvious that some such provision ought to be part of our system, and I turn, therefore, to the Royal Commission to see for what reason they decided that it was unnecessary. That appears in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of their first Report. They first set out the argument for and against and then they give a list of the witnesses that were called for and against, and I notice that whereas the witnesses for such a provision comprise representatives of all sorts and kinds, the witnesses against it were entirely those appearing for automobile associations or clubs or commercial users associations or so forth. They were all people interested in the ownership of motors. On the other hand the witnesses in favour comprise the Railway Clerks' Association, the Furniture Warehousemen and Removers' Association, the Transport Workers' Union, Lloyds, the County Chief Constables' Conference, Lord Howe and the Cyclists' Touring Club.

It is also noticeable, as I think Lord Howe mentioned on the Second Reading, that practically every other civilised country in the world has such a provision, including our Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the U.S.A., France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Poland, Rumania and Switzerland. So there does appear to be a very large weight of authority in favour of some such provision being made. I observe that the Commission give as the reason for their decision—they evidently were not quite happy about it, because this is the only thing they say— With regard to qualifications based on knowledge and experience, we recognise the force of the arguments that no tests can be effective and, therefore, we do not recommend them. They go on to say— Although it may not carry us very far, we think, nevertheless, that to all applicants for driving licences there should be supplied free copies of the Code of Customs to which we refer in paragraphs 74 and 75, and of the booklet on traffic signals. I venture to say that if you are going merely to hand to the driver a copy of these documents, and do not take any trouble to satisfy yourself that he has read them, it is a very unsatisfactory provision of the law. If it is desirable that he should know them, I think you should take care to see that he has read and understood them.

The only other argument that can be used is, I think, as to the expense. I do not know what the expense would be. I do not think it need be very heavy, but after all this is a serious matter, and if it be desirable for the safety of the roads I do not think a small expense ought to stand in the way. After all, you at present charge only 5s. for a licence to drive. I always thought that that was a very low sum to charge if you are to have a licence at all. If it were doubled it would be no serious addition to the expense of driving a motor car or motor cycle. Ten shillings a year is really an insignificant sum compared with the ordinary expense of driving those vehicles, still more so if you have a driver to drive you.

Then is it true to say that this would be quite valueless? I cannot think so. Quite apart from the authority and experience of all those other countries, I cannot believe that it is not a good thing that a driver should know something about it before he drives. I agree that competence is not sufficient by itself to secure safety. Some of the most reckless drivers are also the most competent, but surely by itself it is better to have a competent than an incompetent driver. It is better that a man should know something about driving, or else you are driven to the absurdity of saying that no one ought to be allowed to drive unless he knows nothing about it. It is surely right that drivers should know something, for instance, about the code of signals which is to be enacted. That is the actual and positive advantage of insisting upon some test of competence and knowledge, but I venture to put very briefly before your Lordships and Lord Russell what is by far the strongest reason for my Amendment.

I am sure Lord Russell agrees with me that the thing which we ought to aim at is to get a better spirit in the minds of these reckless persons. Can you conceive anything worse than for a young man of seventeen or eighteen to be able as the law stands, to go and ask for a licence and have it handed out to him as a matter of course. The declaration of fitness will not make any difference from that point of view, because a young man of that age is probably fit. You now say to him, in effect, that this is really a matter of no importance, because anyone can be trusted to drive a car. That is what the Government says as far as it says anything at this moment. You merely have to pay your 5s. and go out and drive your car. You need never have been in a driver's seat before in your life. You may be merely a rich young man with a fancy for driving a car. I have heard people boast, as if it were a great achievement, that they went in and bought a car and drove it straight away down Piccadilly—I did not believe it was true; but that is the kind of spirit which ought not to prevail. People ought to realise that to drive a vehicle two or three tons in weight down a crowded road at a great speed is in itself an operation that requires care and skill, and, above all, prudence and consideration. It is because of the moral effect of calling drivers' attention to the necessity of some degree of knowledge and competence that I earnestly press the Government to accept this Amendment. It may be that the rest of the Amendment is not quite sufficient. I have done my best; I have had to do it without skilled assistance, and if it is not put in proper form I am sure I can rely upon the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to put it in proper form.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after ("the") insert ("competence, knowledge, and").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

EARL HOWE

As one whose name has been mentioned by the noble Viscount I should like to say at once what I know to be the attitude of the motoring community with regard to this particular question. On the subject as a whole the great motor organisations are entirely in agreement, as their evidence before the Royal Commission shows, with the view taken by the Royal Commission itself: they do not want to have examination of drivers. For my part, however, in common with a great many people well qualified to judge, I am entirely in favour of an examination for drivers. But I am definitely not in favour of a compulsory examination because I believe that at this stage the problem has become much too big. With two million people licensed to drive vehicles on our roads we should find it an impossible task at once to set up panels or boards in order to ensure that those drivers are really competent; and at a later stage I propose to move an Amendment to set up voluntary boards.

It is true, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, that practically every other country has an examination of drivers. But the Royal Commission are not really very convincing on the subject. They say they are impressed with the argument that tests are not effective. But why? They really give no reasons in detail. I can give one or two figures. Two or three years ago in the arrondissements of Paris where they have a driving test, 49.6 per cent. of the women who applied for driving licences for the first time failed to pass the test. If you take the vehicles found on the London sweets, I think it is the general experience of nearly everybody that the London motor omnibus is far and away the best driven vehicle to-day. London motor omnibus drivers have to go through a most stringent test before they are allowed to take charge of these great and unwieldy vehicles. If you examine the return of fatal accidents for last year, included in one of the appendices to this Report, you will see that the percentage of fatal accidents for the motor omnibus driver is 8.6, while the percentage of fatal accidents for the motor car driver slightly exceeds 29 per cent. I think those figures speak for themselves, and it is really not enough for the Royal Commission simply to say they do not like tests for drivers.

The great value of a test for drivers is that it will improve the standard of driving. It will oblige people who at present do not use their imagination and common sense when driving on the roads to endeavour to improve their standard of driving. The only thing in the whole of this Bill that will have any effect on the standard of driving is to be found in the clauses relating to dangerous driving and careless driving. I would much rather before making people suffer the very severe penalties, which are rightly laid down for these offences, do everything we can to try to improve the standard, and nothing but an examination of drivers will do that. Therefore, while I am afraid I shall have to oppose the noble Viscount in trying to make this compulsory, because I do not believe it is practicable, I have the greatest possible sympathy with him in his Amendment, and I hope that, if this Amendment is not carried, perhaps I may be able to get his support at a later stage for an Amendment of my own.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I ask what is the use of a voluntary examination? Would anybody who is not obliged to be examined undergo it?

EARL HOWE

I submit that the voluntary system would be almost as good as the compulsory system Supposing the driver were involved in an accident, or supposing he were brought into Court for an infringement of the Motor Car Acts. The very first question he would be asked in Court would be: "Have you passed the driving test?" and in my judgment it would very largely affect the course of the subsequent proceedings if he were able to say that he had passed the test. I propose that a fee should be charged sufficient to cover the cost.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That would mean this. I am run over by a man who has passed a voluntary exanimation. The magistrate in Court would say: "Have you passed a voluntary examination?" The man would say, "Yes." "Very well," says the magistrate, "you can run over Lord Banbury, and nothing will happen, because you have passed a voluntary examination." I have never driven a motor car in my life, but I have for fifty years driven in London all kinds of horses, from one to four, and I have had some experience of driving. My own belief is that the more skilful a man is, the more dangerous he is, because he takes greater risks. What really is wanted is road sense, and you will not get that by having examinations. It is just the same with a motor car as with a four-in-hand. You see something coming and the question is, can you pass that something without having an accident? That you only learn by having been on the road and by having a little common sense. All you prove by an examination is that you know when to put on the brakes and when to put in the gears, and to do all the extraordinary things you have to do to drive a motor car. Though I hope to vote with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, on many occasions, on this occasion I cannot do so.

EARL GREY

It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would support the compulsory examination if he did not quail before the enormous number of drivers who would have to go through it, and therefore break it down. Would it not be possible to make your examination compulsory in the case of licences which are granted for the first time, and perhaps, as far as existing licences are concerned, the holders of those licences might go through the Voluntary examination—which, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, would be very effective. After all, I think we should consider those who suffer as well as those who drive. My own experience is that it is entirely due to the fact that there was a grass margin on the side of the road and that I had a very skilful chauffeur driving me that I am allowed to be in your Lordships' House to-day. I met a motor omnibus which forced me right off the road. I brought a charge against the driver. He was a young man of seventeen who had only driven a car once before in his life, but he would be perfectly competent to get a licence under the Bill introduced now.

The Minister proposes to introduce a highway code. It seems to me that the sort of tests he might introduce if Viscount Cecil's Amendment were carried might very well include a course represented by pictures of the use of the highway code. It would be very easy to put the highway code in cinema form in such a way that it would be of very great value to those undertaking to drive a car for the first time. They would learn a great deal from seeing cinema pictures of what happens when you make a mistake on the road and how much traffic is facilitated by following out the highway code. If you are content to accept a compulsory test when a licence is applied for for the first time, it would be well worth doing.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not follow the argument of my noble friend Lord Howe. He says that a voluntary test would be as good as a compulsory test because every driver for his own protection would undergo it. But he says that if you had a compulsory test it would be useless because there would be so many that you could not carry it out. I do not see how he reconciles those two arguments.

LORD NEWTON

Is not this a case where we should take the opinion of those most concerned? The big associations connected with the trade have their men tested. It never enters their head that men should be allowed to drive their cars without being tested. I am a complete disbeliever in the voluntary system; you might as well have a voluntary system of education and not compel people to go to school. If these big associations compel their men to go in for an intensive course of training, surely they are the people who ought to know. It is much too easy at present to get a licence. Like betting and everything else it is much too easy a process. If the Amendment goes to a Division I shall have pleasure in supporting it.

LORD CUSHENDUN

Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I shall support my noble friend who moved the Amendment in a Division and, if it should be defeated, then I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe. I would rather have a voluntary test than none, but I cannot imagine that a voluntary test can be as efficient or as effective as a compulsory test, and I think the answer to my noble friend's objection that there would be too many has been made by my noble friend Lord Grey. It seems to me that it would be perfectly easy to impose this test on new licensees but not necessarily on existing licensees.

With reference to what my noble friend Lord Cecil said as to the possibility of people going out and driving a car without any experience at all, I know the case of a friend of mine. He came from Canada, arrived in London and had never been on a motor cycle in his life. He was of an adventurous nature, went and bought a motor cycle, took a lesson round the yard of the garage where he bought it, and rode it out of the yard to Stranraer straight away without having ridden a motor cycle before. Mercifully he got to Stranraer and went across the Channel to a better land where he did the greater experiment of riding through the streets of Belfast and did that without any incident whatever. He was very proud of the achievement and naturally; but nevertheless it appears to me rather a precarious proceeding and it would be a very good thing to prevent other people doing the same thing if we can do so by some such simple test as my noble friend suggests. I do not see any difficulty in carrying it out and if the Amendment goes to a Division I shall support it.

LORD DARLING

I only want to ask a question. We have been told by Lord Howe and Lord Cecil that in all civilised countries except this there is a test. I should like to know, seeing it is suggested that there should be a voluntary test or a compulsory test, whether in the other countries which have been alluded to the test is compulsory.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It is compulsory, I think, in all.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I propose to vote with the noble Viscount and hope the Amendment will be passed. The strongest argument for it in my opinion has not been voiced yet or has not been voiced in my way. If this examination were similar to other examinations a great number of candidates would be "ploughed," there would be a great many fewer people who would get licences, and some of the nuisance that exists at the present time would be diminished. It all depends upon the examiners. I hope the noble Viscount will see his way to get examiners who will apply a stiff examination and insist on a stiff test being passed. Otherwise it would be a "sell" like other of these things.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. I do not think it will be any use at all. The dangerous man is the man who is able to pass any test. The man who has been driving about six months thinks he knows everything and begins to drive fast. No kind of test will stop that man; he will go on the road, drive as fast as before and consequently kill people.

EARL RUSSELL

I agree with a great deal that has been said, but I want to bring this matter into focus before we go to a Division. The proposed test will be of use if it is going to make a person drive more carefully and in consequence avoid accidents and save life. My noble friend Lord Howe referred to the drivers of the London General Omnibus Company and said—and everyone will agree with him—that they are the best drivers in the country. They have to pass an intensive training of three weeks to obtain that degree of skill. Unless your Lordships are going to impose something like that upon the drivers of this country you are not going to achieve the same result. The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite spoke about it being easy to impose this simple test. If it is easy to impose, then it is a simple test and of no value. The test, if it is to be of any value, must be a searching matter. As my noble friend Lord Banbury said, it is not a matter of changing the gears, using the brakes, knowing how to handle your vehicle. It is a question of road sense which can only be acquired by experience. In the course of an intensive trial extending over three weeks you are made to acquire that by experience, but a test of one or two hours by some official is not an efficient test of that at all and gives no guide whatever in the matter.

If it is thought that inexperience is the cause of accidents, I think I ought to remind your Lordships what the statistics are. The percentage of accidents in 1928 attributable to inexperience was only 1.4. That is a very small figure. I do not know whether it is worth while imposing an ineffective test for the purpose of hoping to reduce 1.4 to 1.3, which might be the result. If you were going to get a good result from that, well and good. If you are to impose a really searching test it would take three weeks and cost £15. There might be something to be said for it if you did that, but you still only diminish accidents by a very small number. The Royal Commission said no reasonable test that could possibly be applied to every motorist was likely to be an effective test. That was what they meant when they said they did not see how a test could be made effective. It is perfectly true that to drive a motor car upon a road, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, is a matter which requires skill and judgment, and you can do something by private practice beforehand. But it is also perfectly true that, so marvellous is the construction and control of modern cars, a great many people do in fact get upon a car and, with instruction of one hour or so in a couple of days, do go out and drive it safely in traffic. The reason they drive safely is because of inexperience. They take no risks; they go slowly and very carefully. The driver who causes the accident, as has been truly said, is the driver who thinks he can do anything and tries it once too often. He is the man who causes the accidents. I hope your Lordships will not be led away by the fallacy that imposing these tests would do anything to diminish accidents. That really is a fallacy. I think we should get nothing by it.

As to the further suggestion which was made in the course of the debate that the test should be imposed only upon new licensees, well, if your argument is that it is to reduce accidents surely it is unthinkable. Are you to leave two million people driving who ex hypothesi are unfit to drive and only to impose tests on new licensees? If you are to impose a test you must surely impose it on every one. The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment called attention to the character of the people who gave evidence against the test. I agree they were people who knew that tests were valueless. They knew all about driving; they had not got mere theoretical opinions on the subject. They knew from their own experience and practice that these tests could be passed by anybody who might be the most unsafe driver when he got on the road. That was the ground on which they gave evidence. It was not in the least that they did not think they could not pass the tests. It was the result of their experience and of knowing that the imposition of these tests would do nothing to make the roads safer. Your Lordships will take a step which would be contrary to all experienced opinion if you this afternoon impose a test on drivers.

EARL HOWE

I hesitate to speak again upon this topic, but really the noble Earl has made one or two rather remarkable statements. First of all he invited the House to assume that statistics show that inexperience is only responsible for 1.4 per cent. of accidents. Reference to Table D of the first Report of the Royal Commission on Transport shows the following:—Inattentive, confused, or lacking in judgment other than as specified, 6 per cent.; lack of caution at road junctions, 5.8 per cent.; improperly overtaking, cutting in, etc., 4 per cent.; failing to keep to near side, 3.1 per cent.; inexperience, 1.4 per cent. I do not think the noble Earl put it quite fairly before the House when he said inexperience was the sort of thing that would be dealt with by passing an examination and was only responsible for 1.4 per cent. of accidents. I submit, if you refer to these figures, they will show you that it means something like 20 per cent. And those are things which would inevitably be corrected by the examiner.

Furthermore, he said the evidence given against driving tests was given by people who know. Does he suggest that the Transport Workers' Union do not know anything about it when they suggested they were in favour of tests being imposed? I thought the noble Earl was rather in favour of the Transport Workers' Union. With regard to tests in diminishing accidents, how was it that last year on the roads of this country there were 6,000 fatal accidents while in the same period there were only 2,000 in France? I submit that it is not enough to say: "Oh, well, the conditions are different." I think you have to go very seriously into it, and I do not think we are justified in leaving any suggestion unexamined that might reduce the terrible sacrifice of life which goes on on the highway. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me why I thought that a voluntary examination of drivers would be better than a compulsory one, and he said that my argument would be equally bad in the case of a voluntary as in that of a compulsory examination. I do not think it would. I think if you have a voluntary system there would not be the same immediate hurry to try to get past the examiner. I think you would have a very much easier problem to deal with. I think it would be possible carefully and by degrees to have drivers trained voluntarily by using the assistance of the great motor organisations, who would be prepared to lend all the help they could. You would thus reduce the number of people who have to pass examinations to manageable proportions. Then you might institute a compulsory examination for all. If the noble Viscount's proposal now was limited to those getting their licences for the first time I should support him, but I am afraid that is not exactly what the proposal is.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I say that I did not state the noble Earl's argument was bad. I think the argument is a good argument for both.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

There have been one or two things said in the course of the debate that I should like to answer. In the first place as to what fell from my noble friend Lord Howe, I did not feel it was possible for me, certainly not in this Amendment and so far not in the later Amendment, to describe all the details of the way in which this test should be applied. I think that must be left to the skilled advisors of the Ministry of Transport after consulting the great motoring associations, who certainly ought to be consulted as to the method of the test. Personally, I should have thought, if I had to do it myself, that the right plan would be to have a full test for people applying for a new licence. With regard to the people who are merely coming for a renewal of the licence you might assume that they knew enough about the technical part of driving, but you would ask them a few questions to be quite sure they had read the recent highway code and things of that kind. It would be a much shorter and simpler examination that you would offer to people coming for a renewal of a licence than to people who are coming for the first time for a licence. The important part of it is to have some kind of an examination for everybody in order to impress upon everybody that they really ought to be careful when they go on to the road with these machines.

I want to say a word or two in regard to what fell from my noble friend Lord Russell. He did not deal with the moral effect of such a licence, which I am satisfied would be very considerable. He dealt merely with the technical argument as to whether you could produce a good driver by examination alone. You cannot do that in any department of life. You cannot produce a good engineer by examination alone. You cannot produce a good Senior Wrangler I dare say, though I do not know, by examination alone, but you do not therefore reject examination altogether. It helps. It is not complete, but it is something. My noble friends who are against it, amongst whom I am sorry to say I have to include my noble friend Lord Banbury, really are driven to this argument, that it is far safer to be incompetent than to be competent. I am capable of believing most things particularly on the authority of Lord Banbury, but it does appear to me to be absolutely an incredible proposition. Credo quia impossible is really a mild version of the attitude of the mind of those who believe it is better to know nothing about the matter than to be a skilful driver. I cannot accept that even on the great authority on which it is put forward.

My noble friend Earl Russell concluded with one of the most astonishing observations I have ever heard. He said the whole weight of authority was against this test. What did he mean? He meant the motoring organisations and nobody else. They are the only authorities against. So far as they were represented in the evidence before the Royal Commission, everybody else of every kind, sort or description was in favour of tests. The whole weight of authority of all the practical people in all the civilised countries of the world is also in favour of them. Therefore the weight of authority is really in favour and I ask your Lordships to pass this Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Viscount suggested a logical dilemma to the effect that the unskilful driver was therefore a safer driver than the skilful driver.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That is what you said.

EARL RUSSELL

That is in a sense what I said, but let me put an example before the House: There may be a man who does physical exercises in the morning with perfect safety to himself. When he becomes extraordinarily skilful at these physical exercises he may become a trapeze performer, and then it would be much more dangerous for him. That is exactly the sort of argument I was putting. I was saying that the man who can drive really well, if temperamentally reckless, becomes dangerous. It is a matter of temperament and not of skill. If he is temperamentally reckless he is much more dangerous than when he is learning and does not feel that he has full control of his instrument. We shall get an entirely false sense of security if we impose this suggested test. We may improve road manners, we may teach people not to keep so much to the centre of the road, but I do not think we shall seriously add to the safety of driving by imposing this test and I think we shall be taking a step which at any rate a great deal of authority is against, though, as the noble Viscount said, there are authorities on the other side. I ask your Lordships to pause before imposing this test which has not yet been found necessary and is not recommended by the Royal Commission.

LORD DANESFORT

I shall not detain your Lordships more than a moment, but I rise because I have not heard the noble Earl explain why, as the noble Viscount said, practically all civilised countries have considered it necessary to have this cost and why in this country alone it should not be thought necessary. I cannot see myself any reason why we should be the only people not to impose a test which prima facie seems reasonable. The only other point I wish to have information upon is whether when once a man has passed the test, assuming that it is imposed by this Bill, it would be necessary for him in the following year to pass the test again. I think the noble Viscount rather suggested that he might have to pass a modified test.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I am sorry to interrupt, but what I was dealing with was the case mentioned by Earl Howe of a man who has driven perhaps several years before the passing of this Bill. It would not be necessary to put him through so searching an examination as another person who has never driven a car before. Therefore I should imagine that in the regulations framed to carry out the Amendment there would have to be a provision that people who had experience would only be required to show that they had read the highway code and were familiar with any new facts which had come into existence or something of that kind.

LORD DANESFORT

I am much obliged to my noble friend, but that does not quite meet my point. My question really was, supposing a man took out a licence for the first time under this Bill and this Bill should impose a test of competence, when he went the second or third time to ask for a licence would there be any further test?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

No.

LORD DANESFORT

That being so, that certainly relieves me of any difficulty in voting for the Amendment.

LORD LOVAT

May I ask the noble Viscount who brought forward the Amendment whether he can give any figures of the number of examiners required or of the cost to the nation of carrying out this very searching examination? I, personally, do not think that this examination is going to lead to anything, and my intention is to vote with the Government.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I have been sitting quiet rather enjoying the sight of the noble Earl opposite splashing about in deep water, but I think I should be cowardly if I did not come to his assistance to say at any rate that I think he is right on this occasion. He has not treated me well on other Amendments, so I am glad to heap coals of fire on his head in regard to this particular Amendment. I have been connected with motoring for a great many years, and as one who has been Chairman of the Automobile Association for many years and who has gone into every kind of question relating to what is desirable to make users of motor cars drive satisfactorily, I can say that we were very stringent indeed against our own members who were road hogs and against whom any kind of accusation of that kind was made by the public. We found the penalty they disliked most of all was to be deprived of membership of the association. But all these people I think I can say would have passed examinations in driving with flying colours. That is the difficulty.

My noble friend Earl Howe gave certain figures; but who is the man who cuts in? The man who cuts in is the man who can drive well, not the man who cannot drive. The man who takes risks in going round corners quickly is the man who knows, or thinks he knows, to a second the speed at which he is going and the amount of acceleration he can put on his car. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lovat, that the enormous number of examiners and the enormous difficulty of carrying out the examination of something like half a million new holders of licences a year would mean a very great increase in public expenditure. If I thought it would do any good—I have talked over all this many times before with my noble friend Earl Howe—I would vote for examinations, but I am so satisfied that the dangerous driver would pass the examination on his head, so to speak, that in those circumstances I cannot see any reason for putting everybody in the country to a great deal of expense for examinations which I think would not prove anything, and which might have the effect that if a

man or woman was brought up for negligent driving, he or she would produce his certificate and say: "At all events, I am a certificated driver. Nobody can say I am a bad driver." On the whole, I think it would be very much better to leave the law as it now stands.

LORD REDESDALE

May I say a word which may help those of your Lordships who do not drive your own cars? I have driven a car since 1905. Many of your Lordships no doubt drive as well. But what I want to say is that I have passed the examination to drive in France and that examination was the most unutterable farce. It proved nothing.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Yes, but I understand the examination has been made very much stricter since my noble friend passed it.

EARL HOWE

On this particular point, may I say that I also passed the examination to drive in France, and that it all depends on where the examination is carried out. If the examination is made in certain arrondissements it is a very much stricter one than in other districts.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS.
Camden, M.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Davidson of Lambeth, L.
Salisbury, M.	Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]	de Clifford, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Desborough, L.
Abingdon, E.	Sumner, V.	Forester, L.
Bradford, E.		Glanely, L.
Cottenham, E.	Auckland, L.	Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Grey, E. [Teller.]	Biddulph, L.	Lawrence, L.
Howe, E.	Clwyd, L.	Newton, L.
Midleton, E.	Cushendun, L.	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Danesfort, L.
Onslow, E.	Darling, L.	St. Levan, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Plymouth, E.	Amulree, L.
	Russell, E. [Teller.]	Arnold, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Stanhope, E.	Askwith, L.
	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Atkin, L.
Wellington, D.		Banbury of Southam, L.
	Brentford, V.	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)
Beauchamp, E.	Chaplin, V.	Charnwood, L.
Clarendon, E.	Churchill, V.	Cottesloe, L.
Cranbrook, E.	D'Abernon, V.	Daresbury, L.
De La Warr, E.	Elibank, V.	Daryngton, L.
Inchcape, E.	Falmouth, V.	Denman, L.
Iveagh, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Lauderdale, E.		Farrer, L.
Lucan, E.	Mersey, V.	Hampton, L.
Malmesbury, E.		Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Morton, E.	Alvingham, L.	Lovat, L.
Marks, L. [Teller.]	Saltoun, L.	Stanmore, L.
Monkswell, L.	Sandhurst, L.	Swaythling, L.
Morris, L.	Shandon, L.	Templemore, L.
Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)	Thomson, L.
Raglan, L.		Wavertree, L.
Redesdale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

I have two drafting Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 37, leave out ("applying") and insert ("who applies")

Page 4, line 38, leave out ("who") and insert ("and").—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), after "road," to insert "or other public place." The noble Viscount said: You will probably have noticed in reading this Bill that the word "road" is continually used alone, except in Clause 14, which deals with those who are drunk in charge of a vehicle or under the influence of drugs. It seems to me that if you have the words "or other public place" in that clause you ought also to have them in a good many others. I have put down Amendments to that effect. I suppose that a "public place" might be a foreshore or downland where motorists might drive. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 12, after ("road") insert ("or other public place").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

I see that this expression does occur in Clause 14. I am not quite sure what meaning it has there, or whether it ought to be there, but, as the noble Viscount probably knows, the definition of "road" is a roadway "to which the public has access." I am not quite sure what else "public place" would include and, on the whole, I should prefer not to accept this Amendment, because I am not sufficiently clear about its meaning. I do not know what other places could be included under "public place." It might possibly apply to people driving on downland or on a common, but I am not quite sure how far those are "public places." On the whole I think it would be better not to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Earl will allow me to consult him between now and Report, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), after "constable," to insert "in uniform or on producing his authority." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which has been suggested to me by the Mansion House Association on Railway and Canal Traffic. It seems to me a reasonable Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13 ("constable") insert ("in uniform or on producing his authority").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

I think this Amendment is reasonable, because obviously a person ought to know who it is who is asking these questions and interfering with him; but if the noble Viscount would not mind, in this and in other cases where he has put similar Amendments down, allowing me to consult the Home Secretary before the next stage of the Bill, I would be glad to consider whether there is any objection to these words. I do not think there is. I think that in themselves they are reasonable, and if the noble Viscount will allow the matter to stand like that for the moment I shall be glad.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I thank the noble Earl for what he has said, and I shall be glad to take the course which he has suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), to leave out "three" and insert "five." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try to secure five days for the driver, instead of three, in which to produce his licence at the police station. I submit that three days is a very short time to give a driver who may be on a long journey. Many drivers in these days go touring around the country and are absent from their homes. I should like also to say that this particular Amendment has the entire support of all motoring organisations in this country. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will give favourable consideration to it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

I am very glad to say that I am able to accept this Amendment. I think it is an advantage to give perhaps slightly longer time. The same observation will apply to other places on the Amendment Paper where this Amendment occurs.

EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), after "person," to insert "or by his duly authorised representative." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable a driver when away from home or in some such position to send a representative to the police station with his licence for production as required. It might inflict unnecessary hardship on many drivers to compel them to produce their licences in person. After all, I imagine that the important thing is to secure the production of the licence, and that it does not so very much matter whether the individual driver produces it, so long as it is quite clear to the police authorities that he has a licence and that it is in order. If this Amendment is not acceptable, I hope the noble Earl will be able to explain why personal attendance is absolutely necessary. Here again I should like to say that this Amendment has the entire support of all the motoring organisations in the country.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, after ("person") insert ("or by his duly authorised representative").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

This, I think, is going a little too far. Your Lordships will remember that this person already has an obligation to have his licence with him. Has duty is to have his licence with him, and he commits an offence by driving without his licence. The Statute is very generous to him, and gives him a locus penitentiae. It gives him five days to produce his licence, and I do not think it is asking very much to ask that he should produce it himself. The object is that he may be identified as the same person who was asked to produce his licence, and the Government cannot accept the Amendment. The driver is already treated very generously

LORD ATKIN

May I point out that the clause hardly achieves the purpose of identification. As I understand, a licensee who may be driving in one part of England is found not to have his licence with him. He may then produce his licence at such police station as he may specify. He may specify a police station which is at the other end of England. There is no identification of him as the person who was stopped by a police constable in Montgomeryshire if he produces his licence in Norfolk. Would it not be sufficient if, instead of using the words "produces the licence in person," you inserted words requiring the driver to satisfy the police authorities at such station that he was in fact the holder of the licence. That raises the whole question of identification as well. He would have to satisfy the police authorities, and if he does that by sending his wife or his employer he does not lose a day's work.

EARL RUSSELL

He will not be required to lose a day's work, because he can select a police station which is convenient to him. On the matter of identification, I assume that he would be identified so far as necessary by those excellent descriptions of persons which the police are able to produce, and which would be sent to the police station. If, however, the noble and learned Lord will, before Report stage, put down the words which he suggests, I will certainly consider them, but at present the Home Secretary does not wish to have the words changed.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, because although it is not the law of the land it is the generally accepted custom. I was charged some time ago with not having a licence, and I was told to produce it, and I sent it round and it was quite all right. It is the ordinary custom at the moment, and works very well.

EARL RUSSELL

I think what the noble Earl has said shows that it is not necessary to change the Bill. Where a person is well known, and perfectly respectable, there is no necessity for identifying him, but there may be doubtful cases where the police would like to see the individual in question, and I think we must retain this provision.

LORD DANESFORT

I think the noble Earl has given the worst possible reason for rejecting this Amendment. If persons are respectable and rich they are not to be obliged to produce their licence in person, but if they are poor they are to be required to do so. I think that is the worst possible reason for rejecting the Amendment. Sometimes, by inadvertence, a man leaves his licence behind, and I think it is hard upon him if he is engaged in business or is a workingman that he should not be allowed to send his duly authorised representative to show the licence to the police authorities. It is not as if you were relaxing anything. Surely it cannot involve any danger to any one if this Amendment is accepted, and I think it is a quite reasonable thing to do, in order to guard against possible real hardship.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble and learned Lord, with his legal training, ought not to confuse two different words. I spoke about respectable persons, and he said I spoke about rich. Does he think the two things are co-terminous?

LORD DANESFORT

Does he think all persons are respectable?

EARL RUSSELL

No, I think some are not and these I think the police would like to see in person. I have already said that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, will put down an Amendment on Report I will consider it.

LORD AUCKLAND

May I suggest that every person's photograph should be affixed to the licence, for purposes of identification.

EARL HOWE

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RAGLAN moved in the proviso to subsection (5), after the last "required," to insert "and that the licence was taken out not later than the day before the date on which it was so required." The noble Lord said: The effect of this subsection seems to be that no one need take out a licence until he is asked by a police constable to produce it. There is no time put on a licence, and the man may drive straight off and get a licence and duly show it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 20, after ("required") insert ("and that the licence was taken out not later than the day before the date on which it was so required").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension here. Here is a man who is found without his licence and if he then produces a licence it does show whether it was taken out on the day before. That will appear on the face of the licence itself. If he takes out a licence the day after it will be dated the day after. If he takes it out on the same day it will be dated on the same day, and the policeman will see that it was taken out on the same day, and will be able to enquire whether it was taken out before the man was stopped. In that case he will not incur the penalty. These words are unnecessary, and I cannot accept them.

LORD RAGLAN

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (6) (a), to leave out "sixteen" and to insert "seventeen." The noble Lord said: We have agreed that there shall not be an examination for competence. I had the misfortune to vote with the Government on that occasion. Having agreed that there should be no qualification for driving, I think we should see that the persons who are eligible to obtain a licence are of an age which will probably induce them to use certain discretion in driving. Is sixteen the right age to fix? In Clause 9 seventeen is fixed, except for motor cyclists, for whom the age is sixteen. What are the most dangerous vehicles on the road? My belief is that they are motor cycles. They go at a tremendous pace. Over and over again when I have been in a motor car going at about twenty-five miles an hour—

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Why twenty-five? The law is twenty.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Well, it is only a little offence. When going about twenty-five miles an hour I have been passed by motor cyclists going about fifty or sixty miles an hour, with their heads down, not able to see where they are going, and apparently so reckless that they do not care whether they injure themselves or others. I think it was a learned Judge who said that in his experience the most dangerous people, who seemed to be most reckless of their lives, were the riders of motor cycles. I cannot see any reason why they should be allowed to drive at a lower age than the drivers of cars. I hope, especially in view of the action I took a few moments ago, that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

The concluding words of the noble Lord shocked me very much: he surely offered me a bribe. He could not expect me to accept that. But I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, whose vigorous old age we all admire, has not some compassion for the young at the other end of the scale. We are proposing to raise the age of the driver of a motor cycle from fourteen to sixteen. That is a pretty considerable advance. There are a great many youths now between fourteen and sixteen riding motor cycles who will be unable to ride them when this Bill passes. The noble Lord now wants to make the age seventeen. I really think he ought to be consent with what we propose; at sixteen a person might reasonably be allowed to drive a motor cycle.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

One must be fair, even to motor cyclists. What is to happen to a motor cyclist who already, say at the age of fifteen, has bought his machine, possibly on the hire purchase system, and has driven it successfully for nine or ten months? Surely there must be something put in the Bill to deal with existing licensees.

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid the savage and unkind intention of the Government was to let him look forward to the passing of the years, and to wait until he reaches the age of sixteen. I do not think it was intended to give him the opportunity of riding a motor cycle in between. It is doubtless somewhat of a hardship, and we might consider it later, but certainly the present intention was not to let him ride under the age of sixteen, because we think he is too young.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I hold no brief for the motor cyclist. I do not like him at all, but we must he fair. The law has allowed this youth of fourteen to buy a motor cycle, to invest his savings in it, and has given him a licence. To say that on the passing of this Bill his licence shall be taken away from him and he shall not use his motor cycle for another year or eighteen months is, I think, a little hard.

EARL RUSSELL

I agree with the noble Viscount. It has no doubt an element of unfairness in it, because he has only so far been doing what the law allows him to do, and if the noble Viscount puts down an Amendment on the Report stage I will certainly consider it.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I have an Amendment down to this very effect on Clause 9, and I hope the noble Earl will accept it. Personally, I have a very strong sympathy for motor cyclists. I have driven a motor cycle myself, and I have sat behind one driven by somebody else. I have also sat on the back of cars driven by grown up persons, and even by members of your Lordships' House, and I was considerably more frightened when driven by a certain member of your Lordships' House than ever I was when on the back of a motor bicycle driven by a boy of sixteen. I maintain that they drive no more dangerously than their elders and betters.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I say one word in favour of the Amendment? My chauffeur (because, like Lord Banbury, I cannot drive a car) was on one occasion driving quite carefully, and stopped very properly, when suddenly there was a bump at the back, and a motor cyclist said: "You must have been going very slowly to stop so quickly."

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I have an Amendment later on to raise the age to seventeen. Therefore, if there is a Division I should be bound to support Lord Banbury. But I cannot say I have any strong feeling as between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. But I hope the noble Earl will not be too soft-hearted in this matter. I confess I am not very much moved by Lord Brentford's argument. I think it is more important to protect the unhappy public, who are suffering more and more every year and every quarter. The figures published this morning show that the danger is increasing every day, and I really think the question of whether a boy uses his motor cycle for a year more or less is a very small consideration compared with the question of safety. Therefore I personally hope that the noble Earl will stick to his Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not see that it is an argument that because certain wrong things have been done in the past we must always go on doing the same wrong thing. After all, it is no great hardship to make these young motor cyclists wait a little. I read this morning that the latest return by the Metropolitan Police showed that in the Metropolitan Police area one person was killed every six and a half hours, including both night and day. In those circumstances are we to consider whether or not a boy, who has bought a motor cycle on the hire purchase system at fifteen or sixteen, is to go on riding? If he does happen to run into somebody and kill him, who is going to pay the damages? Will a boy of that sort ever be able to insure? Will the insurance clause prevent his driving? I have had before me a man who had a motor cycle and could not pay a small sum of about £l for his rates. In those circumstances it is encouraging danger to allow a boy under seventeen to drive a motor cycle; but, as the majority of your Lordships appear to agree with the noble Earl, I shall not divide though I shall not withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF COTTENHAM

I should regret it very much if the age was raised from sixteen to seventeen. There is an important point, which your Lordships have overlooked, that many of the finest drivers in the country graduated on the roads, first as cyclists, then as motor cyclists, and lastly as motorists. Your Lordships may not all have ridden motor bicycles yourselves, but I feel very strongly in sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, because when a boy gets a motor bicycle, as he has been able to do in the past at the age of fourteen, and rides it for three years before he becomes a motorist, he imbibes during those years a very great deal of that valuable quality Lord Banbury spoke about this afternoon when he mentioned road sense. Lord Russell mentioned, in connection with driving tests, something to the effect that road sense could possibly be acquired in three weeks. I cannot agree with the noble Earl. If those boys get a motor bicycle and ride it for one or two years before they get a car, it is one of the most valuable trainings they can get to make them safe riders.

EARL HOWE

I hope we shall not raise the age for motor cyclists higher than is proposed in the Bill. I was surprised to hear Lord Banbury's somewhat Socialistic idea about righting the wrongs of the past. I hope he will always stick to the idea of righting the wrongs of the past. I hope this Amendment will not be passed because the motor cycle industry is one of the most flourishing and one of the few flourishing industries in this country to-day. It is of great value from the point of view of exports. It is a growing export and we should do nothing to restrict the motor cyclist. The accident returns do not bear out the contention of Lord Banbury and others of your Lordships who have so far spoken. I have the accident returns here. They are published in Table D. of the Report of the Royal Commission and the percentage of accidents attributable to motor cyclists, including the pillion riders, is 26.8 per cent. and the percentage of accidents attributable to cars is 29 per cent. Therefore, I do not think you can say it is the most dangerous vehicle on the roads, though we may dislike it and some may dislike its noise.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

May I point out to the noble Earl that from the table published this morning it appears that private motor cars killed 88 persons and motor cycles killed 71; private motor cars injured 4,905 persons and motor cycles injured 4,349 persons. It is quite true the numbers are slightly less than in the case of the private cars, but then there are much fewer motor cycles than private cars.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I was just going to say that there are fewer motor cycles on the roads than private cars, and, that being so, the statistics of my noble friend are not worth very much.

EARL HOWE

I would point out to my noble friends that the motor cycle is a very fragile vehicle compared with the motor car. Even if accidents are not caused by the motor cyclist yet, if there is an accident, the motor cyclist comes off second best.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD RAGLAN moved in subsection (6) (b), after the first "licence," to insert the words "other than a limited licence." The noble Lord said: If the holder of a limited licence recovers his health it would be very hard upon him that he should not recover an ordinary licence.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 25, after ("licence") insert ("other than a limited licence").—(Lord Raglan).

EARL RUSSELL

I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There will be nothing to prevent the holder of a limited licence getting an ordinary licence whenever it is appropriate he should have it. The object of this is to prevent a man having two licences. I cannot accept the Amendment, but I can assure the noble Lord that his case is met without it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL

I have four drafting Amendments in subsection (7).

Amendments moved—

Page 5, line 33, leave out from ("not") to ("disqualified") in line 35.

Page 5, line 36, leave out ("a") and insert ("the")

Page 5, line 39, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act")

Page 5, line 41, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Earl Russell.)

LORD ATKIN

Would the noble Earl explain the meaning of this subsection (7)? Does it impose a liability on the licensee?

EARL RUSSELL

This is to impose, if necessary, a liability upon him. It is to create a presumption that if he has got a licence he has made the declaration appropriate to that class of licence.

LORD ATKIN

There is no penalty imposed upon him apparently for making a false declaration. I cannot find it and do not see the object. He has not to make a declaration that he is disqualified. He has only to make a declaration about not being disqualified from any physical cause. Does it not require re-drafting?

EARL RUSSELL

I will look into it. You have now to make a declaration that you are not disqualified on any application for a licence, but I am not sure whether it is under Statute or regulation. I shall look into the matter.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Provisions as to physical fitness of applicants for licences.

5.—

(3) For the purpose of enabling the applicant for the grant of a licence to learn to drive a motor vehicle with a view to passing a test under this section, the licensing authority shall, if so requested by him and on payment of a fee of five shillings, grant him a provisional licence to be in force for a period of three months, which licence shall be in the prescribed form and granted subject to the prescribed conditions.

If any person to whom such a provisional licence is granted fails to comply with any of the conditions subject to which it is granted he shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If any person is aggrieved by the refusal of a licensing authority to grant a licence or by the revocation of a licence under this section, he may, after giving to the authority notice of his intention so to do, appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which any office where the business of the authority with respect to the granting of licences is carried on is situate, and on any such appeal the court may make such order as it thinks fit, and any order so made shall be binding on the licensing authority.

EARL RUSSELL

I have a drafting Amendment to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, leave out ("under this Act").—(Earl Russell).

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: I look upon this subsection as rather a dangerous one because it not only allows a person who is suffering under some grave disability, according to the Minister's opinion, to learn to drive, but the authorities shall, if he so applies for a limited licence, grant it to him. It is not even "may." Will the noble Earl tell me whether during the period that these people are learning to drive, they are covered by insurance against third-party risks?

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

To answer the last question first, of course any person who is driving a motor car on the road will require to be protected by insurance. I do not think that the noble Viscount has attached sufficient value to the words immediately preceding the proviso. If there is a person who thinks that he will be able to pass any examination and to satisfy the local authority that he is fit to drive, it is obvious that he must have an opportunity of practising before he passes that examination. The object of the learner's licence is to give him that opportunity. The case would only arise where there was a reasonable chance that he would be able to pass it. The subsection, in the words to which I refer, says the "licence shall be in the prescribed form and granted subject to the prescribed conditions." That means that any conditions could be imposed upon that learner's licence that the local authority thinks necessary. I understand it means that it might be prescribed that he should drive actually with the instructor or that he should not drive on a main road: whatever is thought to be a proper limitation could be prescribed He must learn under such conditions as not to be a danger to the rest of the public. It would be a hardship to deprive him of all opportunity of passing his examination unless he could find a private park in which to practise his driving.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

What I object to is that it is obligatory. If the noble Earl would consider putting "may" in the place of "shall" I should be glad.

EARL RUSSELL

I should be quite prepared to consider that—giving the local authority an option. In fact I would not mind accepting it now if the noble Viscount moves it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I will withdraw my Amendment and move the substitution of "may" for "shall."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Bertie of Thome.)

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "any office where the business of the authority with respect to the granting of licences is carried on is situate" and to insert "he resides." The noble Lord said: In the county in which I live and in other counties the licences are issued from the county office which is situate not within the administrative county but in the county borough, and the effect of this provision is that appeals by the inhabitants of the county against the county council would not be heard by county magistrates but by the county borough magistrates. There is as far as I know no precedent for ordering that when a person is aggrieved at the action of his own county council he should be compelled to have recourse to the magistrates of another county; nor, as far as I know, is there any precedent for directing magistrates to hear cases when none of the parties live within their jurisdiction. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 16, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 18 and insert ("he resides").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

I am not sure that I quite understand this objection. This is a person who is supposed to be aggrieved by the refusal of the licensing authority to grant him a licence, or by the revocation of a licence granted to him. This gives him the privilege of an appeal, and the appeal is to lie to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division in which any office where the business of the authority with respect to the granting of licences is situate. That means that the applicant is to be put to trouble and not the county authority. We think that it is, on the whole, fair when the licensing authority has gone carefully into the matter and come to a certain conclusion that a disputed case should be heard—and there might be several cases—in the court of summary jurisdiction where the licensing authority is.

LORD RAGLAN

The licensing authority is not in that county.

EARL RUSSELL

In the particular case that the noble Lord cites the licensing authority may be in another county, but I do not think that I can help that. The court at which the dispute will be heard is a court convenient for the licensing authority. We think, on the whole, that is fair, and I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved to add as a new subsection: (6) A licensing authority may on the payment of a prescribed fee issue to the holder of a licence granted by them a certificate of proficiency or graduated certificates of proficiency in driving a motor vehicle after the holder of the licence shall have passed such tests of proficiency approved by the Minister as may be made by any one or more bodies representative of the owners or drivers of motor vehicles approved by the Minister. The noble Earl said this is the Amendment to which I referred at an earlier stage when talking upon the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I desire to have some examination of drivers. I do not want to rehash all the arguments I have already used, but I think that the examination of drivers, and that only, is the one thing that will force drivers to pay attention to the matters that they ought to consider. We have had a long discussion about the value of driving examinations, and the question of the driving examination in France was alluded to. I believe that the system in France is that the people voluntarily go before a panel of examiners and that those who are chosen for these panels are in some cases very good and in some others very bad. But I do know of several where the examination is very good. There is one arrondissement where they have an extraordinarily good panel for the examination of drivers, and it is a well-known fact in the locality that nobody can get a driving licence unless he can satisfy the examiner, who is a thoroughly competent individual. I think the same is true in many other cases.

I prefer the voluntary system to the compulsory system because I believe it will enable us to deal more effectually with the enormous numbers who will have to be dealt with under any provision of this sort. With regard to the constitution of the boards, I am able to state on behalf of the great organisation with which Lord Brentford is connected, and on behalf of the R.A.C., with which I am connected, that they have already boards set up which do undertake the examination of drivers on a voluntary basis, and that if the examination of drivers is provided for under this Bill they will do everything in their power to assist the Government in the setting up of panels for the examination of drivers and render help in any other way possible.

What is really wanted is that the boards should be set up under Government ægis. The existing voluntary boards are not enough. I want the examination to be conducted under Government ægis, and for the Government to lay down what conditions and arrangements should be made for the test. I provide in my Amendment for a graduated test so that a driver may pass from one grade to another, if possible. I put this forward as a constructive suggestion. I would again like to say that I am entirely unconvinced by anything that has been put forward in the Report of the Royal Commission on Transport, or anything which the Minister in charge of the Bill has so far said, as to driving tests not being effective and not correcting such faults as are illustrated in the Royal Commission's Report, such as "inattentive" "confused" "lacking in judgment" and so on. I believe those are the things which a test would do something to correct.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

If anything I have so far said has had no effect upon the noble Earl I will not repeat it, but will confine myself to the Amendment. It is a peculiar suggestion which the noble Earl has made. This is something which has no legal character nor any legal validity. It is a permissive power to a local authority, not, as the noble Earl suggested in his speech, to the Government but to the local authority, to set up examinations of a character which is undescribed, and which will result in a certificate, or a graduated certificate, of proficiency. Local authorities are to be able to set up these examinations all over the country, if they wish, under different conditions. No authority is given them as to the amount of the fees they may take, and very likely they would have quite different tests. Then a certificate is to be issued which, as far as I can see, will have no legal validity whatever. I do not know that it might not even be looked upon in a rival county with disfavour, in some of those counties which are jealous of each other. If, for instance, you produced in Yorkshire a certificate which had been obtained in Lancashire, it might even rather go against you. Honestly I think it is a very novel power to give local authorities to hold examinations of this character, as far as I can make out only for the benefit of the motorist, which will serve no legal purpose when they have been held. It is entirely contrary to precedent, and I think from that point of view, apart from anything else, we ought to resist it.

LORD SANDHURST

I hesitate to intervene in this matter, but as I understand it the efficacy of this would only be that in the event of an accident and a hearing before the magistrates or the County Court Judge the first question that would be asked of the drivers would be: "Do you hold a driving certificate of proficiency?" According as that question was answered in the affirmative or the negative it would assist or injure a person's case. With great deference, in my humble opinion both as a lawyer of some experience and also as a magistrate, that would be a most improper question to ask. The question to be determined would be what was the cause of the particular accident that had occurred, and the question as to whether a person held a particular licence issued by some particular body would really not be relevant to that inquiry and, in my humble opinion, ought not to be allowed. It seems to me to have some analogy, only from the opposite point of view, to the practice which happily is not followed in our country of asking a prisoner whether he has had a previous conviction. The question will have to be decided on the facts of the particular case and not upon the question of what previous experience or what previous skill a party to the proceedings has had.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Like my noble friend Earl Howe I still remain of opinion that it would be desirable to have a general test of competence and knowledge, but I am not sure that we shall do any better in the Division Lobby in a second Division than we did originally. I rather hope, therefore, in these circumstances, as we cannot really produce any fresh arguments, that my noble friend will not proceed to a Division.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope my noble friend Earl Howe will not press this. I see no object in it. I agree with my noble friend on my right that the only effect would be to give a person summoned for dangerous driving some possible advantage with a jury who might say: "Oh, well, this man has got a certificate. Therefore, the allegation of dangerous driving is not likely to be true." I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment. I regret very much to find myself so often in agreement with the noble Earl [Lord Russell], but I hope sooner or later we shall have an opportunity of voting against him.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provisions as to disqualifications and suspensions.

(3) A person who by virtue of a conviction or order under this Part of this Act is disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, may, at any time after the expiration of three months from the date of the conviction or order, and from time to time apply to the court before which he was convicted or by which the order was made to remove the disqualification, and on any such application the court may by order, as it thinks proper, having regard to the character of the person disqualified and his conduct subsequent to the conviction or order, the nature of the offence, and any other circumstances of the case, either remove the disqualification as from such date as may be specified in the order or refuse the application.

(4) If any person who under the provisions of this Part of this Act is disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence applies for or obtains a licence while he is so disqualified, or if any person who by virtue of a conviction under this Part of this Act or of an order of a court is disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence drives a motor vehicle, or, if the disqualification is limited to the driving of a motor vehicle of a particular class or description, a motor vehicle of that class or description, on a road whilst the disqualification continues, that person shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and a licence obtained by any person disqualified as aforesaid shall be of no effect.

(5) Notwithstanding any enactment prescribing the time within which proceedings may be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, proceedings for an offence under subsection (4) of this section may be brought either within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed, whichever period is the longer.

(6) For the purposes of this section, references to orders and convictions under this Part of this Act include orders and convictions under the corresponding provisions of any enactment repealed by this Act.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: I may have been mistaken, but I thought that the noble Earl was rather shaky on this subsection in the Second Reading debate, and that he rather suggested that it was a bad one. I thoroughly agree with that view. I thought, in fact, that he rather held out the suggestion that if anybody moved to omit this subsection, he might accept the Amendment. I do not think that in any other case can a person convicted of an offence apply to the same court for a review of the case. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Viscount is quite right. I did say on Second Reading that I thought this was rather an irrational provision, but it was inserted originally to soften the hardship of something for which I am myself responsible, and that is the compulsory and automatic disqualification of a drunken driver for twelve months. I am still, I confess, of the view that a drunken driver ought to be disqualified for twelve months—that is my private impression—but it was thought well that the court should be given the opportunity of allowing him to apply after three months for removal of the disqualification if it was thought proper to do so. I believe that when we come to the compulsory disqualification clause my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin is going to raise the question of compulsory disqualification. Any alteration made then might make some difference to the value of this subsection. I am rather inclined to leave the matter entirely to your Lordships. I have no very great feeling about it one way or the other, except that so long as you have automatic disqualification it may be that a court which thinks it ought to convict, also thinks the period of disqualification too long and in that case it could take advantage of this subsection. I am not quite sure whether we ought to take the subsection out entirely until we have decided what we ought to do about automatic disqualification. Subject to that, I leave the matter entirely to your Lordships.

LORD SWAYTHLING

May I ask whether there ought not to be some limit to the number of times a person can apply? The Bill says a person— may, at any time after the expiration of three months of the date of the conviction or order and from time to time apply to the court…. Does that mean that he may apply as often as he likes after the three months has expired?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, that is so. That is the interpretation of the clause as it stands. The only deterrent would be the imposition of costs at petty sessions—and I do not think that those would be very large—plus, of course, the inconvenience of going to attend petty sessions. But this provision was originally drafted, as you may remember, by Lord Cave when he was Lord Chancellor and appears in the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. As I say, I must leave the matter to your Lordships whether you think it wiser to leave the subsection in at this stage and consider whether it could come out or not later. I have, as I say, no strong feelings.

LORD RAGLAN

Does this include drunkenness?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Although I have no objection to following the suggestion of the noble Earl, and leaving this matter over until the Report stage, I must not be taken as undertaking not to return to the charge on Report stage.

EARL RUSSELL

Hear, hear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "by order." The noble Lord said: It is not usual for a court to make an order to refuse an application. They simply refuse it.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 23, leave out ("by order").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

I accept this.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (3), after "character," to insert "or antecedents." The noble Lord said: I understand a person's character is not necessarily affected by a conviction for a motoring offence and that some other words are necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 24, after ("character") insert ("or antecedents").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not think I can accept this Amendment. "Evidence as to character" is a perfectly well-known phrase in our Courts of Law. I really really do not quite know what "antecedents" means. It might raise the question of whether a man belonged to some other political Party. I think it would be an undesirable phrase to introduce. Previous history is really immaterial except so far as it affects character, so that the word "character" covers it. I think I must resist this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 27, after ("either") insert ("by order").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

My next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 9, line 39, leave out from ("any") to end of line 41, and insert ("such person while he is so disqualified")

Page 10, line 3, leave out ("whilst the disqualification continues").—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (4), after "fifty pounds, or," to insert "if for special reasons the court shall think fit so to order." The noble Viscount said: I should like to submit this Amendment to the noble Earl. This subsection deals with the person who drives after he has been disqualified, either with a false licence or with no licence at all. The whole theory of disqualification is absolutely upset if people drive after being disqualified. It is a very serious offence from the point of view of the maintenance of the law that a man or woman should drive after being disqualified. In those circumstances, and in view of the fantastic procedure of a good many tribunals with regard to fines, I suggest that normally a person who commits this offence ought to go to prison. It is a perfectly deliberate offence. You cannot drive after being disqualified without intending deliberately to break the law, with the purpose really of abolishing what I believe the noble Earl and I for once agree in regarding as the most important form of punishment for this kind of offence. I suggest that in these cases the offender ought to go to prison unless, for some special reason, the court thinks that he should not.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 6, after the first "or" insert ("if for special reasons the court shall think fit so to order").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

EARL RUSSELL

I sympathise, as the noble Viscount said, with his point of view. I think this is a very serious offence and that in a normal case it calls for imprisonment. But I do not know whether it is desirable to go too far in giving instructions to the court or in laying down how they are to look at a case. The effect of this Amendment is that you are going to say to the court: "You will send him to prison unless you think for special reasons that he should pay a fine." It is just possible that this might make difficulties. Suppose the case of a boy a little under sixteen, where imprisonment would be inappropriate and there might be special reasons for a fine. These words might, I think, make difficulties. I would rather, on the whole, that the noble Viscount did not press the Amendment, although I entirely agree with his object. I think it is, as a practice, undesirable to give directions to the courts unless they are directions that they must actually follow. I think hints as to what they ought to do are not quite the right way of proceeding.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Let me point out that, if a boy under sixteen were convicted, the court could say that there was a special reason, that he was so young that they did not want to send him to prison. Then my noble friend's Amendment would come in. This is a very serious offence and I hope that my noble friend will press the Amendment. It will undoubtedly strengthen the hands of justices. My experience on the bench—and I should think it is the experience of many other noble Lords—is that there are always two or three justices who are for letting off everybody. In those circumstances an Amendment of this sort would strengthen the hands of those people who desire to maintain the law. If my noble friend goes to a Division and will allow me to tell with him, I shall have very much pleasure in so doing.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I think that this Amendment would be of real advantage. The effect of saying that the court must have special reasons is to put upon them the burden of saying what their reason is, and for that purpose they have to make up their minds what it is. There are plenty of people who, out of good nature or because they do not like to have the name of being hard judges and so forth, will say: "Let him off"; but if it were put to them: "Why?" they have to venture to say why or to admit that they do not know what their reason is. I do not think that there is any indignity to a court of summary jurisdiction in saying that, if it decides to do something, it must be for some reason which it can venture to state in plain words. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will press his Amendment.

LORD ATKIN

I should like to say a word about this. I am sorry to say that I do not take the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner. To my mind it is of the greatest importance that Courts of Justice, including magistrates, when they have to award punishment, should have a discretion as to the punishment, which depends upon the circumstances of each case. Punishment depends so entirely upon the circumstances in each case that it appears to me to be unfortunate to limit the discretion of a court which is exercising that very important duty. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that it has often happened in the past that courts of summary jurisdiction have not taken as serious a view of offences in connection with the driving of motor cars as they ought to take. On the other hand I am sorry to say that it very often happens that if you rigidly impose a punishment which the court feels in the special circumstances is too severe, the remedy adopted by the court is not to convict.

I fear that this would happen in these cases, because after all, if the alternative is merely imposing a period of imprisonment, which may vary from one day to six months, and you can impose a fine only if you think there are some special circumstances which the magistrates do not want to define or feel difficulty in defining, they can meet the problem by simply sentencing a man to one day's imprisonment, which is a farce, while it might be quite proper to award what might in this case be the entirely suitable punishment of a fine of £5, £10, or £20, as the case might be. I cannot help thinking that, on the whole, it is better to leave questions as between imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the justices.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I need not say that, since two very learned Lords have expressed different opinions, this cannot be a very easy question to decide, but let me say, in answer to what has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, that it is not uncommon to have a provision in an Act that an offender shall be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. In that case you definitely require the court to send him to prison. If the court think that the offence is a very slight one, they do, no doubt, get out of the difficulty by sentencing the offender to a period of imprisonment that amounts to very little. I agree that there might be cases here where justice would be met by a fine, but I think they would be very rare. I think the case of a man who deliberately drives after being disqualified—

LORD ATKIN

The noble Viscount has noticed that this includes applying for a licence.

VISCOUNT CECIL OR CHELWOOD

Yes, but applying without saying that he is disqualified. In either case he is making a perfectly deliberate and intentional effort to set aside the law. It seems to me to be a very serious offence. In dealing with this particular case it becomes very grave, and I do press upon my noble friend this consideration, that to fine a rich man in charge of a car of great value £5 or £10 is absolutely no punishment at all. He simply does not mind, and that is what has happened over and over again in these offences. I quite respect my noble friend's scruple as to putting any fetter upon the discretion of the court, but I do think that in this case the Legislature, if they desire to mark their sense of the seriousness of the offence, would not be going too far in saying, normally you shall send a man to prison, and only if there are exceptional reasons can you fine him. I hope my noble friend will see his way to accept my Amendment, or at all events will be prepared to consider it on Report; otherwise I shall have to go to a Division.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I have doubt about this Amendment. It is quite clear that it is useless for the Legislature to impose penalties which go beyond public opinion. I do not know whether I ought to say this, but while I was Home Secretary I quite definitely, in regard to one very large Court of Appeal, the Court of Quarter Sessions, found that where imprisonment was given by the magistrates for certain offences, an appeal invariably took place and almost invariably the conviction was not sustained. At the Home Office we had very strong suspicion that the accused were guilty, over and over again, and ought to have been convicted, but the convictions awarded by the magistrates were coupled with the punishment of imprisonment, and when the cases came before the Quarter Sessions the men were let off altogether, because the Quarter Sessions would not affirm the decision given in the court below. That is only one instance of trying to legislate in advance of public opinion. I do not want to describe the penalties as savage, but one must not have too strong penalties, or you cannot get juries or magistrates to convict. I had grave doubt as to whether I ought to rise and speak upon this, but I came to the conclusion that I ought to tell your Lordships of the quite definite series of instances, extending over two or three years while I was Home Secretary, in which we could not get convictions carried out because the penalties were deemed to be too severe. I leave it to your Lordships as to what ought to be done.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I would only remind the noble Viscount that while it is dangerous to inflict penalties which are too severe, I am satisfied that in this matter there is a very grave divergence of opinion between those who own and drive motors and the great mass of common people of this country, and that there is a very dangerous frame of mind growing up in several districts. People are beginning to say: "If we cannot be protected properly by the law or the Legislature we must take the law into our own hands." That is a very serious state of things. I am satisfied that it is a real danger, and I am satisfied that this Bill is very much less than that class of opinion demands. That is why I am anxious to see it strengthened in various directions. At the same time, after the various opinions which have been expressed I do not propose to press my Amendment on this occasion, but will reserve my right to raise it again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 19, after ("include") insert ("references to").—(Earl Russell.)

LORD ATKIN

May I mention, before this clause is passed, a matter which arises on subsection (5)? There is a period of limitation which seems to be rather vague. The subsection extends the ordinary period of limitation from six months to one year. It is a considerable period. Then it goes on to say— or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed, whichever period is the longer. Now it depends on who is the prosecutor. If you had an ignorant prosecutor and a chief constable who did not know anything about it, there might be no prosecution for six years. There ought to be some limit. In respect of this offence I know of no provision which requires the prosecutor to be one person rather than another, and the person who has committed an offence may be liable to attack for quite a considerable time. I do not see why one year is not quite sufficient. It is twice as long as for any other summary offence.

EARL RUSSELL

I will, of course, look into that matter.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions as to endorsements.

(2) Where an order is made requiring any licence held by an offender to be endorsed, then—

1. (a) if the offender is at the time the holder of a licence, he shall, if so required by the court, produce the licence within such time us the court may determine for the purpose of endorsement; and

(5) Where a person in respect of whom an order has been made under this Part of this Act, or the corresponding provisions of any Act repealed by this Act requiring the endorsement of any licence held by him, has during a continuous period of three years or upwards since the order was made had no such order made against him, he shall be entitled, either on applying for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act, or, subject to payment of a fee of five shillings, at any time, to have issued to him a new licence free from endorsements:

Provided that in reckoning the said period of three years no account shall be taken of any period during which the person was disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "such time" and insert "five days or such longer time." The noble Viscount said: In Clause 4 we have already fixed the time for producing a licence at five days, and I submit that it would be for the better administration of the law that we should fix the same period of five days here.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, leave out ("such time") and insert ("five days or such longer time").—(Viscount Brentford.)

EARL RUSSELL

Of course the person who has not brought the licence to court is in default already, but that was equally the case in regard to the other Amendment, and I think in all the circumstances I had better accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 40, leave out ("seven") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Brentford.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (5), to substitute "five years" for "three years." The noble Lord said: This subsection enacts that where a person has been convicted of an offence and has had his licence endorsed, then if during three years from the last time when his licence was endorsed there has been no fresh endorsement, he shall be entitled to a licence without any endorsement upon it. It seems to me to be a rather dangerous proposal, because it is to the advantage of a court to know what the antecedents of the person who is prosecuted have been. If, because he has not had a conviction for three years, all his previous convictions are to be wiped off his licence, you will be encouraging people to take risks. I do not see that it will make a great difference by putting in "five" instead of "three," but at any rate it ensures that the person has for a considerable period exercised care and discretion.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 21, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Lord's Amendment is, I think, partly not reasonable and partly not necessary. It was in 1920 that this privilege was accorded to motorists of carrying an apparently clean licence when they had been three years without a conviction. They have enjoyed it now for nearly ten years, and I think it would be a pity to go back on that and make the time five years. But the noble Lord seemed also to think that all their previous convictions are wiped out. They are not wiped out. Every one of their previous convictions may be produced in evidence in the police court against them. It merely means that the licence they carry on the road, and which the police constable sees, may be clean at the back.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

But is it not possible that the driver in the police court may say: "I have got a clean licence," and that, if he is in a police court where he is not known, the previous convictions are not known? The noble Earl said this privilege was given ten years ago, but there were not the accidents ten years ago that there are to-day. It is in view of the enormous increase in the number of accidents that it is necessary to take precautions which may not have been necessary ten years ago.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

There is another point. Many a man in seeking an engagement advertises that he has a clean licence. If he has had a conviction just over three years ago he would be able to do that under this provision, and it would really be rather misleading to the potential employer if the man had had a conviction within so short a time as three and a half years.

EARL RUSSELL

But is that really so? Would it not be equally misleading it the period were five years? And if you have had three years' good conduct, driving in present-day conditions, is not that rather creditable? And that is what you have to do to have your clean licence. The employer would be equally deceived, under the noble Lord's Amendment, if the man had been driving for five years without a conviction. I think without some strong reason it would be a pity to depart from what has been the law for ten years and has worked quite satisfactorily.

EARL HOWE

As one who has in his pocket at the present moment a clean licence, may I hope that the noble Earl will not give way to Lord Banbury? May I assure Lord Banbury that the fact that I have a clean licence in my pocket does not in any way affect the proceedings if I happen to be charged under the Act, and if I happen to appear in court. For I believe there is some strange provision in law that if you do not appear in court the previous convictions cannot be read out, but that if you do appear they can. But, apart from that minor defect in the law, there is no doubt whatever that if you have been previously convicted, whether you have a clean licence or not, the previous convictions can be, and are, brought up against you, and you suffer again for the offences you have previously committed. Lord Banbury has referred quite rightly to the increase in accidents. I do not think we ought to lose our sense of proportion. It ought to be remembered that motor vehicles on the road have increased within the last five years by an enormous percentage—I believe over 100 per cent. I agree that they are very serious, and we ought to do everything possible to put an end to them, but I do not think this is one of the ways to do it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not know what the effect would be if my noble friend were to apply for a situation as a chauffeur. He could honestly say that he had a clean licence, but I do not know what his employer would say if by any accident his previous convictions were brought out in court. However, as I have succeeded in getting from the noble Earl a statement that it is wrong to alter a law that was passed ten years ago, and as I presume he has great influence in the present Government, I may take it that if I withdraw this Amendment now no law which was passed ten years ago will be altered in Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (5) and to insert: "Provided that the said period shall be reckoned from the date of the making of the order." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really a drafting Amendment. My object is to try to ascertain from the Government the intention of their proviso. Subsection (5), to which it is attached, provides that a driver who has had his licence endorsed, but during the subsequent three years has had no further orders made against him, may apply for the issue of a new licence free from endorsement. The question raised by the Amendment is, when does the period of three years begin to run? Does it, in fact, begin from the making of the order, or, if the driver has been disqualified for six months, would it be three years from the end of the disqualification?

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 31, and insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

The question of period is made quite clear. The proviso states:— Provided that in reckoning the said period of three years no account shall be taken of any period during which the person was disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that you would get a clean licence at the end of three years if your previous conduct had been so bad that you had been disqualified during the whole of those three years, and therefore not able to drive. That clearly would not be desirable.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

It is not quite that. The question is whether the words "no account shall be taken" are really the right words to use. If the noble Earl says that the disqualification shall be for a period of three years, during which he would otherwise have been entitled to get a licence, the words of the proviso "no account shall be taken of any period" might be read to mean that it is a three years disqualification from the date of the order, and that you are not to take the period into account—it is removed from the calculation. It is merely a drafting question; the words could be read either way.

EARL RUSSELL

I will look into that. Earlier in the subsection the phrase is used "during a continuous period of three years," and in the proviso we say that— in reckoning the said period of three years no account shall be taken of any period during which the person was disqualified. It certainly is not quite clear what it means, but it looks as if it did not count at all—as if it did not break the continuity of the three years. But I agree with the noble Viscount that it does want clarifying.

LORD RAGLAN

Is it met by my Amendment which comes next?

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid not.

EARL HOWE

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RAGLAN moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), to leave out "disqualified for holding or obtaining," and to insert "not in possession of." The noble Lord said: It seems to me that my Amendment simplifies the question and also shows that a person is fit to drive safely by driving safely, not merely by abstaining from driving.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 30, leave out ("disqualified for holding or obtaining") and insert ("not in possession of").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL RUSSELL

No, I do not think this will do either. The fact that the driver has not taken out a licence does not matter. He may take out the licence as a matter of form and not drive. However, I will consider this when I am considering the rest of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Restriction on driving by young persons.

9.—(1) A person under sixteen years of age shall not drive a motor vehicle on a road.

(2) A person under seventeen years of age shall not drive a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on a road.

(3) A person under twenty-one years of age shall not drive a heavy locomotive, light locomotive, motor tractor or heavy motor car on a road unless on first applying for a licence after the commencement of this Act he satisfies the licensing authority that he was during the six months immediately preceding the passing of this Act regularly engaged in driving a motor vehicle of that class.

(4) Any person who drives, or causes or permits any person in his employment to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of this section, shall be guilty of an offence.

LORD BANBUBY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I move to leave out this subsection because it appears to me unnecessary. Subsection (1) says: A person under sixteen years of age shall not drive a motor vehicle on a road; and subsection (2) says: A person under seventeen years of age shall not drive a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on a road. I suggest that subsection (2) is sufficient. I do not see what is the use of putting in subsection (1), which says no person under sixteen shall drive, and then to put in subsection (2) which says that no person under seventeen shall drive.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

These two subsections are necessary. Subsection (2) says that a person under seventeen shall not drive a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on the road. If he is under seventeen he can only drive a motor cycle. But if he is under sixteen he cannot drive any motor vehicle. You must have the combination of the two subsections; it is a matter of drafting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to add to subsection (1) "unless on first applying for a licence after the commencement of this Act he satisfies the licensing authority that he was during the six months immediately preceding the passing of this Act regularly driving a motor vehicle". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to allow boys who are driving motor cycles at present to go on doing so. I think it is very hard, if having been allowed to drive hitherto since they were fourteen, those who are driving should not be allowed to go on driving. Two years is a long time to wait. The noble Earl said he would accept these words which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not say I will accept it, but I am rather inclined to leave this to the general feeling of your Lordships' House. One of the statements is that no serious hardship is involved in prohibiting a boy of under sixteen from riding a motor cycle. I am not sure what the boy of fifteen would say about that. It is possible he would not agree with it. Although the noble Lord opposite (Lord Banbury) has no sympathy with these youths, I have some sympathy with them. It may be right to have a saving for the existing drivers. They would not have to wait long but, against that, one must remember that disappointments at that age are more keenly felt than in later life and a year to a boy of fifteen is an immense period. I am disposed to leave it to your Lordships and would be glad to hear your views.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

As the noble Earl invites the views of the House, for what they are worth may I give mine? To my mind there is something almost shocking in weighing the question of the disappointment of a boy of fifteen because he is not to be allowed to ride a motor cycle for another year as against the danger to the public. If it is true—and the noble Earl apparently thinks it is true—that, broadly speaking, boys under sixteen should not be allowed to ride motor cycles on the road, then surely it is a fantastic thing to say that, although it is dangerous for a boy under sixteen to ride a motor cycle, yet he should be allowed to do so because otherwise he would be very disappointed. I would ask your Lordships to stick to the Bill as it stands and not accept the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I must intervene for a moment. The noble Viscount who is always so fair is not quite fair to me. If he will look at the Amendment on the Paper, he will see that it says he was during the six months immediately preceding the passing of this Act regularly driving a motor vehicle.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It does not follow he has done it safely.

EARL RUSSELL

No, but it generally means that. It does not allow new boys to come in. I am surprised he should accuse me of disregard for human life in this matter.

EARL HOWE

The noble Earl said he took the age of sixteen from the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Transport. That says:— With reference to the ages at which drivers' licences can be obtained under the present law, viz., seventeen in the case of motor cars and fourteen in the case of motor cycles, we do not think that any alteration is needed in the case of motor cars, but we hold strongly that the age of fourteen is too low for motor cycles. A motor cycle capable of travelling at great speed is a very dangerous machine for a boy of fourteen to ride, and by universal testimony there is a great deal of reckless riding on the part of many motor cyclists, especially in the way of ' cutting in ' and at road junctions, etc. Youth is probably one of the causes of this. Yes, but the Royal Commission were unable to give figures showing that many motor cycle accidents or a large proportion of them have been caused by boys of fourteen to sixteen riding motor cycles, and therefore we ought to take a lenient view on this point. Unless it can be proved that a large proportion of accidents are due to boys between these ages we should not deal harshly with those who already under the law of the land hold these licences, who have committed no offence and who should not have their licences taken away from them.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

As we are on the subject of motor cycles has the noble Earl considered whether motor scooters are included under the term?

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said it was fantastic to allow these boys to go on doing what under this Bill it is considered dangerous for them to do. I would point out that under the clause an equally fantastic thing is done by allowing boys under twenty-one to go on driving heavy vehicles if they are at present doing so. There are some boys now of possibly only fifteen who are driving sidecars for tradesmen who would lose their jobs if this proviso is not inserted.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Can the noble Earl give us any information on the member of accidents by these boys under sixteen? I have seen no figures and I should have thought the more reckless age would be the young fellows of twenty and twenty-one.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

There are no figures that I know of.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Then he makes this accusation against a class of young fellows whom the law has permitted to drive and who perhaps have bought their motor cycles under the hire purchase system. It is not their fault, it is our fault, it is the law's fault. I think it is hard that they should be told "Put it away for eighteen months." It will be old and rusty then. Some noble Lord says they should sell it at a knockout price. Some of these lads, who drive about London with trays attached in front of their motor cycles making quick deliveries of goods will lose their jobs and be thrown on the unemployment market. I do not suggest altering the figure in the Bill. Let it be sixteen in future, but this is ex post facto legislation. It is a little unfair that these lads who could not have foreseen that a Bill of this kind would be brought in, should be penalised.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

What puzzles me about the argument is that what seems to weigh so much more with my noble friend is the question of unfairness or hardship upon these boys rather than the question of safety. It is very hard on anybody to have his liberty interfered with in any respect. But if it is not unsafe for boys under sixteen to drive we have no right to put the age sixteen in the Bill; it ought to be maintained at fourteen. If, on the other hand, it is unsafe for boys between fourteen and sixteen to drive—and the Royal Commission with quite unwonted emphasis asserts that it is quite wrong for boys of that age to be allowed to drive; I presume there is some evidence on which they founded that opinion—if that is so surely the question of these disappointments and hardships, though they may be serious, are not on the same plane as the other considerations.

THE EARL OF IVEAGH

Can the noble Earl opposite tell me what machinery there is for collecting these licences that have been issued? Will the holders be allowed to go on using them to the end of the year? I think, on the whole we had better let those who have licences go on to the end of the year. I cannot think they will be so very dangerous for the eighteen months. They would be gradually getting safer as they went on, for they would be getting older.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The object of this Bill is to prevent the fearful accidents that have been occurring during the last seven or eight years. The result of the Bill will undoubtedly be to put hardship on certain people. It will inflict increased penalties and do various things. The Royal Commission, as I understand, said that motor bicycles are a very dangerous form of vehicle, and recommended, as I understand, that the age should be sixteen. Now because, possibly, certain boys will be disappointed if they cannot ride their motor cycles, we are to say we will put aside the Royal Commission and we will not consider whether or not persons may be killed or injured, but, for the sake of the pleasure of these boys, or in some cases perhaps for their business pursuits, we will alter the Bill as it was brought in so that hoys under sixteen may drive these dangerous motor cycles.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am for tightening up this legislation, but it seems to me you are going a great deal further than disappointment and hardship. You are inflicting direct injustice. These people have obeyed the law. They have thought that in spending their money they were doing right, and they were correct in so thinking, but now by a stroke of the pen so to speak you are to take away this privilege from them. I do not care if they are to be disappointed, and I do not mind if the law inflicts hardship, as it does on most people, but I do think it ought not to inflict direct injustice and I feel this is an injustice.

LORD SWAYTHLING

May I point out to your Lordships that if this Amendment is not accepted the law will, it appears to me, be in a curious position. A boy will be licensed to drive a motor bicycle up to a certain date, and on that date he may be prevented from getting the licence renewed for six months or more. From the moment this Bill passes into law, he will be permitted to drive his motor cycle, and possibly be a danger to the public if he does so. He can continue driving till his licence expires, which may be eight, nine or even ten months. At the end of that time you are to say to him that he may not have his licence for another year. It seems to me if the House does not accept this Amendment something should be put into the Bill to meet the point which I have raised.

EARL RUSSELL

The position will certainly be one of hardship upon these people—I think the noble Earl opposite did not go too far in saying one of injustice. They have done what the law allowed them to do, and you now propose to alter that. If it were a mere case of altering their pleasure I think perhaps one would not mind so much, but, as the noble Viscount opposite said, in many instances it is a case of altering their living, and interfering with their use of the cycle while they are engaged upon lawful purposes. I think it is contrary to our usual practice in this country to do that sort of thing to people who are innocent and who have been guilty of no offence. I think we ought to reduce the question to its proper proportions. First of all none of them can be less than 14½ years old, because they must have been driving six months before the Bill comes into force. It might be possible, if your Lordships think so, at a later stage, as a further precaution, which would be without unfairness to them, to make the date, say, January 1 next, when they have been given notice of this change in the law. It would give them another six months before the Bill actually became law. In that case when the Bill became law you would only have a class between the ages of fifteen and sixteen to deal with. There are no statistics to show that these licensed motor cyclists between fifteen and sixteen have been particularly deadly or dangerous to the community. I am bound to say, on the whole, after listening to the discussion, I am very much inclined to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and if we cannot decide it in that way perhaps we had better go to a Division.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I do not follow what the noble Earl's suggestion was. He suggested some other precaution.

EARL RUSSELL

I was saying that in any case they would have to be driving six months before the Bill comes into force. I ought to point out that they have driving licences in force, and not only that, they have vehicle licences for the motor cycles for which they have paid money. They have them for six months. We might fairly treat them as having notice to-day that this is going to be the law, and we get the other six months between now and the time this Bill becomes law. Therefore when the Bill became law it would in fact apply to people of fifteen at the youngest.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Does the noble Earl mean no fresh licence would be given after to-day? I do not quite understand his idea.

EARL RUSSELL

I had not gone into details. What I was suggesting might operate in this way, that any person who after to-day—or whatever time you choose to fix, say the end of the year—chooses to take a licence for a motor cycle, being under sixteen, would take it with notice that that licence would come to an end as soon as this Bill receives the Royal assent. That is the only way you could provide it.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That would make a very great difference. There is a possibility the moment this Bill is passed of everybody who is fourteen going immediately to get a licence. They will know they will be able to have it and will not have it after that day.

LORD DANESFORT

I feel great hesitation about accepting this Amendment. What it really means is that for another period of a year, or possibly a year and a half, you have to continue what the Royal Commission has suggested is a great danger. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the words used by the Royal Commission. They say:— We hold strongly that the age of fourteen is too low for a motor cyclist…A motor cycle travelling at great speed is a very dangerous machine for a boy of fourteen to ride. The noble Earl has put in the Bill that sixteen is a proper age. Therefore we start from this proposition that it is gravely dangerous for a boy under sixteen to ride a motor cycle. If that be so. why should you continue that danger for another year or a year and a half? That is really the effect of the Amendment.

The only argument I have heard of the least weight for accepting the Amendment is that, if you do not accept it, you may hurt some boys of fifteen in the course of their business. If I may give my own experience, I have walked for good or evil a great deal about the streets of London, and I have seen boys, not on motor cycles but on pedal cycles carrying about goods for tradesmen. I do not know that I have over seen a boy of fourteen or fifteen on a motor cycle carrying about goods for a tradesman. But that is really the only argument used in favour of the Amendment, that it would be hard on the boy of fifteen earning his living by carrying goods on a motor cycle to deprive him of that means of livelihood. As regards other boys who have been doing this for amusement, I do not see that there is any hardship whatever. If there is a choice between continuing the danger and allowing boys to kill themselves or members of the public for the next year, we ought to decide in favour of avoiding that danger. If there is really a case about boys riding motor cycles and getting their living by it, it might be desirable to make a concession in their favour, but the Amendment of my noble friend would apply not only to the boys who earn their living by riding motor cycles but to the boys who do it for no purpose whatsoever except pleasure—pleasure which is a danger to themselves and a danger to the public.

LORD REDESDALE

From the point of view of danger, may I point out that any boy who came under the provisions of this particular Amendment would certainly be able to pass with flying colours any of the examinations suggested as a safeguard of the public?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I would venture, in order to see where we really are, to move an Amendment to the words of the Amendment—that the words in the Amendment "preceding the passing of this Act" be left out and the words "preceding 1st January, 1930," inserted, and then to add at the end of the Amendment "in the course of his trade or employment." Then you do deal with what I admit is a strong case of injustice which has been made out in the case of people driving in the course of employment. I agree that it might be proper to safeguard them, but I do not see why you should safeguard anybody else.

EARL RUSSELL

I think it would be better to leave the Amendment to the Report stage because if you put in the words "preceding 1st January" that would mean that all the people who have lawfully taken cut licences during the last six months would be shut out. I think that the noble Viscount ought to consider that point before Report stage and let us take the opinion of the Committee on this Amendment as it stands.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make a common age of twenty-one for all drivers of motor cars, and not merely to apply it to those who are driving for their living. The Amendment is extremely simple and does not require any elaborate argument. Why is it safer for the boy of seventeen to drive a private motor car rather than a commercial motor car? I do not see the distinction myself. I think we should fix the age at twenty-one for motor cars of all kinds. That is the whole Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line, 14, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

EARL RUSSELL

This is an Amendment to make the age twenty-one. I think I should advise your Lordships to resist it if only on the ground that the ages we have here are those recommended by the Royal Commission. I have not heard any good argument for departing from it. The noble Viscount himself hardly advanced any argument. I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

It is difficult at this stage to ask your Lordships to go to a Division, but it seems to me it is a very grave form of class legislation to allow private motor cars to be driven by boys of eighteen and nineteen when you do not allow boys of the same ages to earn their living by driving motor cars in the course of their trade or business. I confess I do not see any reason for the distinction at all. It seems to me very hard that you should make a distinction in this case.

EARL RUSSELL

I think the noble Viscount is mistaken as to the facts. These people are able to drive a motor car so long as it comes within the weight limits. It is only heavy vehicles they must not drive.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: Provided that in the case of a person driving a heavy motor car net being a public service vehicle eighteen years of age shall be substituted for twenty-one years of age.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is desired by the commercial motor vehicle owners in order to permit a young man of eighteen and upwards to drive a lorry. Under the Bill a youth of seventeen is permitted to drive a commercial vehicle of two and a half tons unladen weight and also any private car which may weigh as much as three tons. Employers have found by experience that there are many youths between the ages of eighteen and twenty who make very good drivers of three-ton lorries. There is another argument which may be advanced in this connection, and that is that at the age of eighteen a man is taken by his country and allowed to serve in the Forces and to fight overseas if necessary. Therefore I do not think we can say that a young man of eighteen is necessarily an irresponsible youth. I hope very much that in order to meet the desires of the commercial motor users the Committee will agree to this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask one question? Would the Bill prevent an Army Service Corps man under twenty-one driving a heavy lorry?

EARL RUSSELL

I think I am right in saying that general power is taken for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces later in the Bill. These things have been represented to the Minister and considered. Of course, they have to have liberty. As to the Amendment, the simple answer is that the Royal Commission considered this very carefully and we think it much better not to depart from their recommendations.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (4), after the first "or" to insert "knowingly." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is submitted in order to prevent an employer who is acting in good faith from being convicted of an offence if he employs a driver under the legal age. If an employer makes proper inquiries as to the age of an employee and is deceived by the latter, I submit he ought not to suffer prosecution. "Knowingly" does form part of other legislation and therefore I submit this Amendment to the Minister's consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 24, after the first ("or") insert ("knowingly").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

The word "knowingly" is very undesirable as a rule and does not generally add to the strength of any Statute. A person could not be held to have driven, or to have caused or permitted a person in his employment to drive, unless he did it knowingly or unless he had some proper reason to know that he was committing an offence. It cannot be an offence to do so without knowing it. I do not think this word strengthens the Bill one way or the other, or assists the employer.

LORD ATKIN

I hope the noble Earl will reconsider the matter. I am not quite sure whether "knowingly" is the best word, though I cannot at the moment find a better one, but it seems to me, under this clause as it is drawn, that if a man employs somebody who has deceived him as to his age and is in fact permitting him to drive a motor car in contravention of the section, that which is in contravention of the section is that a man under twenty-one drove the car. If he permits that man to drive, he is permitting somebody to drive in contravention of the Act. The intention, as the noble Earl pointed out, is that the employer should not be liable unless in fact he does knowingly commit the offence. Surely that ought to be made quite clear. This might cause great hardship to employers who have no means of protecting themselves. As we are proposing a new criminal offence, I think that care should be taken that the innocent employer is not penalised.

VISCOUNT CECIL OK CHELWOOD

In spite of the noble and learned Lords great authority, I should have thought it very doubtful if that is the proper construction of these words. I should have thought that you could not be said to cause or permit a person under twenty-one to drive a car unless, in fact, you knew that he was under twenty-one. Otherwise you could not be accused of permitting a person under twenty-one to do it. You would not be causing a person under twenty-one to drive, but a person who might or might not be under twenty-one. However, the noble and learned Lord is far more likely to be right than I am. In any case I hope we shall not insert the word "knowingly," because that word really is very difficult to construe and might lead to the greatest evasion of this provision, if it had to be proved that the employer knew positively that an offence had been committed. That is putting a very great burden upon the authorities.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

But there is this point. Supposing that there is an employer and he employs a person who says that he is twenty-one years of age. He looks as if he is twenty-one and he asserts that this is his age. The employer employs him. He gets into an accident and it is then discovered that he is not twenty-one years of age. Then, as I understand it, the employer is liable, and it seems to me that this would be extremely hard on him. He has taken the precaution of asking whether this particular person is twenty-one years of age and has been assured that he is. He might even have got a character from somebody else saying that the man had been in their employ and that they understood that he was twenty-one years of age. As I read the clause, the result, if he were discovered not to be twenty-one, would be that the employer would be fined for allowing him to drive the car. I do not know whether "knowingly" is the right word or not, but I think that something ought to be put into safeguard the employer.

EARL RUSSELL

Like the noble Viscount on the Cross Bench, I naturally have great respect for the noble and learned Lord and for any opinion that he expresses—so much respect that I am not prepared to say here and now that I differ from him. But I am not at all sure that the word "knowingly" really helps, and in any case I should not propose to accept it at this stage. I will consider very carefully before the next stage what the noble and learned Lord has said.

EARL HOWE

After that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL

I will accept the next Amendment, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 25, leave out ("in his employment").—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD DE CLIFFORD

I should like to ask the noble Earl a question about the general powers that he has taken for the mechanised Territorials. At present the mechanised Territorial Force has to drive its vehicles on the ordinary county council licences that are issued to them. If under this Bill no man is to be allowed to drive a heavy vehicle unless he is twenty-one years of age, many of these men will not be allowed to take out those licences, which at present, if they drive, they are compelled to have. I would like to know if the noble Earl cannot do something about it, because we recruit men at eighteen and nineteen and it is going to be a very serious thing if we are not to be allowed to have them drive until they are twenty-one.

EARL RUSSELL

The Ministry of Transport would not presume to meddle with such high matters. It leaves them to the War Office. The clause that we have put in did satisfy the War Office and, if it does not satisfy the noble Lord, I think he must apply to the War Office to have it rectified.

LORD DE CLIFFORD

I have applied to the War Office. They said that the Ministry of Transport had assured them that they were going to put in an exemption clause, but I had from them the Bill as it was then and they said they could not find it.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I ventured to put this to the noble Earl. I think we ought to make sure that there is an exemption for all the members of His Majesty's Forces.

EARL RUSSELL

I will not undertake to find it at the moment, but I shall be very much surprised if it is not somewhere in the Bill.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Perhaps the noble Earl will let us know on Report.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Before this clause is agreed to, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he does not think that we might adjourn when we have finished with it? The next Amendment raises the question of the speed limit, and this really does not seem to me to be a proper time and opportunity for entering upon that question.

EARL RUSSELL

I am in your Lordship's hands, but we have not made very great progress this afternoon and the Bill has 109 clauses. We are not going to sit to-morrow and we shall not take the Bill again until Monday afternoon. I should have been glad to make rather more progress if your Lordships had felt inclined to sit a little longer, but I am entirely in the hands of the House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I be allowed to say a word on this point? I think that, if there were any chance of making substantial progress between now and eight o'clock, there would be something to be said for the noble Earl's plea, but the clause that we are now entering upon is, of course, one of the major clauses of the Bill. It raises the very difficult question of the speed limit. I do not believe that in twenty minutes we shall have got very far in the matter of the speed limit, however fast we drive. Accordingly, if I were in the noble Earl's place, I think I should consent to an adjournment.

EARL RUSSELL

When advice comes from such a competent quarter it is quite impossible for me to resist it. I should like to have made more progress, but I agree that this question of a speed limit ought to be discussed as a whole. You cannot discuss it in bits. You must take it, when you do take it, from beginning to end. I am sorry that we could not get further, but I have to thank the Committee for helping me to get so far.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.