ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 17 December 1929 vol 75 cc1398-458

House again in Committee (according to Order):

[The EARL or DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

THE EARL OF COTTENHAM moved, after Clause 22, to insert the following clause:— .For the purpose of preventing and detecting offences by the drivers of vehicles against the provisions of this Part of this Act as to driving and offences in connection therewith, and as to accidents and of punishing offenders, it shall be the duty of the chief constable of police in every police district to employ and equip with suitable motor vehicles specially trained constables in order that they may patrol the roads in their respective police districts and caution the drivers of vehicles against committing any such offence and may stop any driver committing or whom they suspect of having committed any such offence and may arrest any driver who is liable to arrest under this Part of this Act for any such offence.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides for the formation of motor police patrols. It is a very drastic Amendment. Indeed, with the exception of the abolition of the speed limit, it is probably the most drastic question that has come before your Lordships' House on the Committee stage of this Bill. I feel that an Amendment of this kind, which, if it meets with your approval, may have very far-reaching effects on road safety in this country, needs to be presented by one whose command of language and ability to turn a phrase is more, in accordance with the traditions of your Lordships' House. But I shall do the best I can, and I hope my shortcomings as a speaker will not influence your Lord-ships against it. I do not for a moment believe that the abolition of the speed limit will produce that orgy of speed upon the roads that the scaremongers predict. The twenty miles an hour limit has been disregarded so long that its passing, when it comes, will be almost unnoticed in practice if not in theory. At least that is my humble opinion. Every sane motorist wishes to see the few irresponsible drivers, who may be encouraged for a time by the abolition of the speed limit to use the speed of their cars in dangerous places, driven completely off the road. If they cannot be brought to see the errors of their ways, then I hope most sincerely that the provisions of this Bill will make motoring in this country impossible for them.

There is a grave danger in this righteous enthusiasm for safety first which is now sweeping through your Lordships' House, that the sheep may be herded with the goats. There is every possibility that good drivers may be subject to annoyance because, the police may not be able to distinguish between good driving and bad. How then shall they judge between dangerous and careless driving? To be a judge of driving at all it is not only necessary that the police officer should be able to drive a car himself but he should be able to drive it well. In fact I would regard it as absolutely essential that he should have made a close study of the causes of accidents, of different kinds of road surfaces, and of the characteristics of different makes of car. In fact he would have to be a specialist. I submit that mobile police patrols mounted on motor cycles and side-cars provide a solution of many of the problems connected with road safety which are occupying your Lordships' minds at the present time.

I have reason to believe that police patrols have been utilised with success in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Certainly in the City of Edinburgh they have done most invaluable work. I was up there for some time this year and watched these men at work. They were very good indeed, but I felt they were in a somewhat experimental form and did not perhaps possess that very specialised knowledge which I have ventured to recommend to your Lordships. I would like to quote some figures in connection with the work these men have actually done. I take them from the "Report on the State of Crime and the Police Establishment of the City of Edinburgh, 1928." page 20:— The traffic patrols exercise an indispensable check on fast and dangerous driving throughout the City…. From the return of offences dealt with by the traffic patrols it will be seen that during the year 10,244 offences were detected. Of these 3,705 cautions were administered at the time of the offence, or later by letter, while 1,539 offenders were reported for process. Your Lordships will notice the very great saving on the already overworked police courts. These figures show that, out of 10,244 offences, only 1,539 ever reached the police court. The traffic patrols found 358 motor vehicles being used on the public highways with defective brakes. These machines were thoroughly tested and 240 owners or drivers were cautioned while 118 were reported…. Special attention was given to drivers failing to keep as near as practicable to the left-hand kerbs while passing over crossings. This offence was a very prolific cause of street accidents, but owing to the strict enforcement of the regulations it is becoming rare. While 623 drivers were cautioned for this offence 251 were reported.

I do not think I need quote any more from that, but I have some figures here from the same Report. They show that in 1926 there were 1,801 traffic accidents in Edinburgh, in 1927 there were only 1,336, in 1928 there were only 1,089. That represents a decrease of 465 for 1927 and 247 for 1928. It is stated in the Report that this result is primarily due to the efficient work of the traffic patrols and the spread of safety first knowledge. As may be expected, a very up-to-date method has been adopted of cautioning pedestrians for acts likely to lead to street accidents, and 249 men were cautioned, 131 women, 942 boys and 76 girls. The Edinburgh police have been acting on the right lines in experimenting with these motor patrols. The figures I have quoted must prove conclusively that safety has gone up by leaps and bounds, while the strain imposed upon the courts by the hearing of a lot of unnecessary motor cases has been very materially decreased, as has also the strain on the voluntary hospitals which are frequently called upon to deal with these motor cases with no hope of their ever receiving any payment for it. I am sure your Lordships will feel, as I do, that the people of Edinburgh have very good reason to be proud of their police patrols.

It is essential that any motorist or motor cyclist who is stopped and cautioned or reported by a police patrol should realise that the two men (because they work in pairs) who have stopped him know as much (or more) about motoring as he does himself. In fact, the men who form these police patrols must be able to drive a car very much better than the ordinary driver and ride a motor cycle very much better than the ordinary motor cyclist, because in their acknowledged superiority as motorists would lie at least 70 per cent. of their power and authority. In addition to the ordinary training of a police constable, they would need to be proficient in first aid and map reading, and their knowledge of the topography of their own particular area should be accurate and extensive. They should make a survey of all the cars and drivers that pass through their area frequently, with a view to tracing stolen cars and work of that kind.

One cannot deny that the formation of patrols such as I have ventured to suggest would in the ordinary way involve considerable expense to the State, but I think it might not be as bad as it sounds. The spread of automatic traffic signalling in the towns throughout the country seems to me to be proceeding far too slowly. In Edinburgh, where I have made quite a considerable study of the whole question, I believe I am right in saying that where automatic signalling devices have been put up and men relieved of point duty, these men have been trained as traffic patrols, and so really there has been no increase in the personnel of the police force. I am perfectly convinced, as these figures seem to prove, that the presence of these patrols on the roads is going to save lives. If that is so, then some small expense is surely more than justified, and it would be false economy not to incur it. I have made several notes about the special training these men should receive, but I have already taken up so much time that I will not read them now. I hope, however, that your Lordships will very seriously consider the bringing into being on the roads of this country of mobile police patrols, consisting of highly specialised, disciplined, honest and kindly men, devoted to the interests of all classes of road users, and determined to raise to the highest possible pitch the standard of safety with which His Majesty's subjects, whether men, women or children, motorists, cyclists or pedestrians, may use the roads of this country on their lawful occasions.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 23, at end, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Cottenham.)

EARL RUSSELL

Twenty years is a short time in the history of a country, but a long time in the development of motoring, and where we may be twenty years hence I do not know, with the increase of motor cars on the road, and the improvement of our roads. It may well be that long before that time it may be desirable to set up not only mobile police but even what I have heard advocated several times lately, special traffic courts, manned by people acquainted with motoring sufficiently to distinguish between grave and less grave offences, and to administer suitable punishment. That may very well become necessary, but I am afraid that the Amendment of the noble Earl is not really very suitable in this Bill. I sympathise with his object. It is, I think, a very good object, and I think that police of this sort may very likely be extremely useful. If he were at some time or other to put down a Resolution in this House that the establishment of such a force is desirable, we could have a discussion upon it and ascertain the feeling of the House; but it is not usual, I think, for Parliament to instruct chief constables how to carry out their duties.

The police are a local force and under the control of the chief constable, who, in his turn, is under the control of the standing joint committee, and I do not think it is usual for Parliament to tell the police what men they shall employ, how they shall employ them, and how they shall carry out their ordinary police duties. For this reason I am afraid that the proposed new clause is inappropriate here, and I am not prepared to accept it. It is in any case a Home Office matter. It is a thing which might very well be included in a circular of suggestions to chief constables, but that Parliament should order chief constables to do this would be, I think, a new departure. The purpose and the words of the clause are that it shall be the duty of the chief constable of police to employ and equip. That would be contrary to precedent, and from that point of view, and not from any want of sympathy, I am obliged to resist the Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

It seems to me that the proposal is a very good one, although it has one or two drawbacks, and I do not understand why the noble Earl rejects it. What the noble Earl says is that the Home Office may do this, or issue a circular which will instruct the chief constables to do this, but that Parliament must not. It is again putting a Minister and a Department above Parliament, and that is one of the things to which I strongly object. Parliament is the proper authority to do it. The only objection that I can see to the proposal is that I am afraid that if we employ not only skilled drivers and policemen, but skilled mechanics too, it will cost a great deal of money, and I do not think it is necessary to have a police constable with a car, who is told if he sees a motorist in distress to put the car right for him. All that is necessary, I think, is that he should see that the motorist is not driving dangerously. With regard to that, I saw with horror this morning an advertisement in The Times or the Morning Post, which said this:— Our new model. You can proceed gently at a walking pace. You put your foot on the accelerator gently and immediately jump to eighty miles or more. The noble Earl thought that in all probability under this Act motorists would not go at greater speeds than they do now.

THE EARL OF COTTENHAM

If I may correct the noble Lord, my point is that when they are corrected they shall be corrected in the right place. If they desire to drive at a speed that is considered very far above the present legal limit, they shall be allowed to do so unless they endanger any one else by so doing.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am afraid it seems to me that when you are driving you touch the accelerator and at once spring to eighty miles an hour or more.

THE EARL OF COTTENHAM

Where does the noble Lord obtain that car? What is the name of it? I have been searching for such a car for years.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The Rolls Royce—well, that is what the advertisement says. In these circumstances I am inclined to think it is really necessary to have some patrol on the roads who will see that the people who buy these cars do not accidentally touch an accelerator and go up to eighty miles an hour. Because if you are going at eighty miles an hour and meet another car, like the noble Earl's, coming in the other direction at eighty miles an hour and your foot touches the wrong pedal—which is not impossible—two heavy vehicles going at that speed may meet. Then what remains either of the cars or of the people who are in them?

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid the noble Lord did not catch what I said. I did not say that the Home Secretary would instruct the chief constables. It is no part of the Home Secretary's duty to instruct the chief constables. They are independent officers locally appointed. I said that the suggestion might be included in a circular. I suggested that it would be extremely unusual for Parliament to instruct chief constables, and I would prefer that such a precedent as this should not be established. I am quite sure it is contrary to all precedent in our legislation.

EARL HOWE

I did not gather from the noble Earl's reply whether he was going to take any definite steps to impress this point particularly on the Home Office. I am quite certain that one of the first things he will find when this Bill is passed will be that it will become increasingly necessary to have a body of police specially trained for work on the highways. Whether they are mounted on motor-cycles is a matter for consideration by the chief constables in each case. These specially trained police will be able to appreciate the problems involved. More than one chief constable already—including my own progressive chief constable—have taken this step. It has been taken in Buckinghamshire. I hope that the noble Earl, if he cannot accept the Amendment in this form, will pass on the suggestion to the Home Office as being an extremely good one.

EARL RUSSELL

I have already said that I think that that is a very good idea, and I think it extremely likely that chief constables will adopt it, but this is not the way to do it. As to my communications with the Home Office, I will take the noble Lord into my confidence at a later stage perhaps.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23:

Power to highway authorities to authorise on specified highways carriage of greater weights,

23. A highway authority may as regards any road for the maintenance of which they are responsible permit any trailer specified in the permit drawn by a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive on the road to carry weights specified in the permit notwithstanding that when conveying such weights the trailer does not comply with any regulations as to the weight laden of trailers or as to the maximum weight which may be transmitted to the road or any part thereof by trailers, and where such a permit is given it shall not be an offence in the case of any such trailer to carry on that road weights authorised by the permit by reason only that the trailer when conveying them does not comply with such regulations as aforesaid.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 23. The noble Lord said: The effect of this clause, as I understand it, is this. Certain regulations may be made as to the weight that trailers can carry, but when these regulations are made a highway authority may come forward and say: "Never mind about, those regulations: we shall make other regulations which will permit you to carry a different weight." I presume it would be possible to permit them to carry either a heavier weight or a lighter weight. The result might be that a locomotive, with a trailer might start in the district of one highway authority with a weight approved by the regulations. When it gets into the district of another highway authority it has to unload part of its weight because the weight in this other district has been altered by the highway authority. I think we should have one authority—or rather. I should prefer everything to be laid down by Act of Parliament.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 23.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Lord has said that he is not in favour of innovations, and I think he has not always accepted my reference to authority. If he will look at the margin of the clause he will see that this provision is over thirty years old—it is not a new thing at all. If he will also look more carefully at the clause he will see that it is not a case of making regulations, it is a case of giving a special permit for a special vehicle in special circumstances. There are occasionally very large pieces of machinery, among others such things as transformers for the modern electrical developments, which weigh as much as 80 tons in the one piece. They cannot sometimes conveniently be carried by railway. They have to be carried from where they are manufactured to the port of shipment, or to the place where they are going to be used in connection with the grid transmission, or something of that sort. If you were not able to carry them occasionally by road with a special permit yon would interfere with trade, which would be very regrettable.

I had an example of the kind of thing before me in a Select Committee two years ago where we were so much impressed with the difficulty of dealing with these huge things that we actually allowed a new level crossing for the purpose of getting into the works to be made across a public highway. Even in that case a special cane had to be brought to lift the thing on to the truck, and it is sometimes necessary to carry them. This refers by no means to a general regulation. It refers to a special load for some special purpose. Of course, you might put the Minister in as the person who gives the authority, but it is generally more convenient that it should be the highway authority, because these things generally go, if possible, to the nearest and most convenient port.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I understand now the reason, but it seems to me there is a new terror on the road. My noble friend Lord Howe who, I think, goes at a fairly good speed, may suddenly meet on the road one day some locomotive drawing 80 tons behind it. I hope he will not run into it, because I am quite certain that, if anything happened, it would not be to the 80-ton load. These loads of 80 tons will destroy the road as well as imperil any vehicles that they come in contact with. But I sup-pose we have got to live and learn in these days, and I will not press my Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles.

24.—(1) Whore the bridge authority of any bridge over which a road passes are satisfied that the bridge is insufficient to carry weights above a certain amount they may, by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed on or near the bridge, prohibit the use of the bridge—

1. (a) by heavy locomotives and light locomotives, or by heavy locomotives; or
2. (b) by motor vehicles and trailers whereof the weights or the maximum permissible laden weights indicated by marks placed thereon in accordance with any Act, order, or regulation for the time being in force are greater than such as may be specified in the notice:

Provided that no weight specified in the notice shall be less than five tons.

(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is driven or drawn across a bridge on or near which such a notice is displayed in contravention of the notice without the consent of the bridge authority, any person who so drives or draws or causes or permits it to be so driven or drawn shall be guilty of an offence without prejudice, however, to any civil liability of that person in the case of damage being caused to the bridge:

Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of passing over the bridge the total weight or weights of the motor vehicle, or the motor vehicle and trailer, as the case may be, did not exceed the weight specified in the notice.

(3) Any person or body of persons aggrieved by any restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, may appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, if he considers that the bridge is sufficient, as the case may be, to bear heavy locomotives and light locomotives or heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those specified in the notice, after considering any representations made by the bridge authority, may order the restriction or prohibition to be removed or to be varied in such manner as he may direct, and the authority by whom the restriction or prohibition has been imposed shall comply within such time as may be specified in the order of the Minister with that order, and if they fail to do so the Minister may cause the notice to be removed or varied so as to comply with the order and recover the expense summarily as a civil debt from the authority by whom the notice was placed as aforesaid.

(4) The Minister may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrator or otherwise at his option, and where he determines any such appeal as arbitrator, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Minister, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section.

(5) An order of the Minister under this section with regard to any bridge shall not prevent the imposition of any restriction or prohibition with regard to the bridge at any future time if the authority empowered to impose the restriction or prohibition consider that it is necessary to do so having regard to any change in the circumstances of the bridge or the traffic, but the imposition of any such restriction or prohibition shall be subject to appeal under this section.

(6) The Minister may refuse to consider any appeal under this section with regard to any bridge if the question raised by the appeal has already been considered by him under a former appeal.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE had an Amendment on the Paper to move, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "Where." The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of Amendments which I have put down on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association. I do not intend to press any of them if the noble Earl cannot see his way to accept them. The Ministry of Transport is, of course, the Department responsible to Parliament for docks and harbours and the association is perfectly satisfied that the interests of docks and harbours are in good hands. The only object in putting down these Amendments was to draw the attention of the Ministry to certain provisions which affect the docks and harbours. So far as the first two Amendments that I have put down are concerned I understand there is no chance of the noble Earl accepting them and as I do not want to take up the time of the House uselessly, I do not move them.

LORD LOVAT moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Lord said: In some rural districts, certainly many rural districts in the Highlands of Scotland, a great many of the bridges are quite unsuited for carrying a weight of more than that of the ordinary motor car, and in the County of Inverness a considerable number of bridges bear a notice to that effect. I have just received a telegram from the district of Skye where, at the present moment, there are 185 bridges which, even to meet existing requirements, are scheduled to be under repair. If the local authorities are unable to post a notice to the effect that these bridges are unsuitable for heavy traffic very serious accidents would occur there. It is quite obvious that in a county like Inverness where the road rates are already 3s. in the £, it would be quite impossible to undertake the construction of this number of bridges which, as I have shown, is for one district alone of Inverness, 185, and that County has eight districts in it. I know from my own knowledge that what is the case in Inverness-shire applies more or less to the same extent in all the sparsely populated districts, which have roads and bridges that are suitable only for the traffic that is likely to use them.

I am quite aware that to a certain extent this objection might be made under Clause 42, but that is surely a very cumbersome method. To build each of these bridges there would have to be an inquiry. A petition would first have to be lodged by the county council, and then a public inquiry would have to be held. Furthermore, in a sense, Clause 42 applies to roads but not to bridges, and unless some modification of Clause 42 can be made I do not see how the necessary prohibition could be used to enable heavy traffic to be stopped from going over bridges of second- and third-class roads which are quite unsuitable for such heavy traffic. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, leave out lines 12 and 13.—(Lord Lovat.)

VISCOUNT NOVAR

Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to confirm what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Lovat. The conditions which he has described are by no means restricted to Inverness-shire, but prevail equally in Ross-shire, the neighbouring County, in which I live. I would add this to what my noble friend has said that, if it be replied to him that it is time these bridges were made to support heavier weights, it should be remembered that, owing to the extraordinary rating conditions which prevail in the Highlands, an increase in the rate must fall heavily upon the comparatively few who do pay rates. There is a great deal of force in what my noble friend has advanced.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I should also like to confirm what Lord Lovat has said. In the South of Scotland, in my own County of Selkirk, the same conditions prevail. If this clause is passed in its present state it will mean to my own knowledge that bridges, which at the present moment are able to preclude heavy traffic over, I think it is, three tons, will immediately have to be repaired paired and strengthened at the cost of the ratepayers and without any advantage to the ratepayers. I am sure there are many other places in Scotland which would fall within the provisions of this clause, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to take this into his very serious consideration.

EARL RUSSELL

I am rather surprised by the appeal that has been made to me because noble Lords have entirely disregarded the existing state of the law. Under the existing law and the regulations a notice restricting the use of a bridge cannot apply to vehicles whose aggregate laden weight is less than five tons. I am told, as a matter of historical interest, that five tons was fixed originally without any regard to motor cars, but on the idea that it was the largest and heaviest load that would ever be carried by a wagon. Therefore it was fixed at five tons, and these bridges are all supposed to be able to carry five tons, and they certainly ought to be able to carry it. If there is a case of ancient bridges that are worth preserving and that ought not to be rebuilt, then the Minister can be applied to under Clause 43. It does apply, in our view, to bridges as well as to roads, but the roads of this country must be made fit for ordinary traffic—such traffic as there has been in the past going up to five tons on bridges. I would remind noble Lords who have spoken that the Ministry is quite prepared to consider favourably any applications to reconstruct bridges at this moment, and has given public notice of that. Scotland is not generally backward in coming to the Ministry when there is any grant to be obtained. I hope noble Lords instead of opposing this clause will, where proper, rebuild the bridges. It would be out of the question to accept the Amendment.

LORD LOVAT

I do not think the noble Lord has quite got my point. It is this, that in the clause as it stands there will have to be such a large repair of bridges in certain districts as to make it quite impossible that it should be undertaken without involving a very great increase in the rates. I have quoted a case from Inverness-shire where a rate of a penny in the £ brings in only £800. In view of the number of bridges which would have to be repaired your Lordships will easily see that if this regulation was enforced we should have to add perhaps two shillings or three shillings to the rates for a period of years. I cannot think that that is the wish of the noble Earl. Furthermore, a great many of these bridges have never had a five-ton lorry on them and are never likely to. Is it essential that we should make such bridges to a little group of crofters' cottages to which the heaviest vehicle that ever goes is a pony cart? Surely that is carrying the thing to a degree never contemplated. We have not got one or two such bridges, but I understand that on third-class roads in that county alone there are over 500 bridges. Surely it is not right that we should be forced in these sparsely populated districts, which are desperately poor and already overburdened, to impose this taxation merely to get uniformity? I do not wish to run counter to the noble Earl on a subject on which he is much better informed than I am, but in Inverness-shire we have had notices put up with the assent of the Minister of Transport notifying that certain bridges will not bear a weight of five tons. I think the noble Earl must have been referring to canal bridges which were taken over by railway companies. In that case it was laid down that they should be capable of bearing a load of not less than five tons. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider his reply.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Lord has not in the least dealt with what I said. He speaks as if this was something new, but I have pointed out that this is not a change in the law. This is the existing law. If there are such bridges as he refers to leading to crofters' cottages, I agree that it would be ridiculous to have a bridge capable of bearing five tons, but the appropriate course then is to go to the Minister of Transport and ask for an order to restrict traffic on the road, which, of course, could be obtained.

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask the noble Earl whether the existing law says that all bridges must be so constructed as to carry five tons? There must be a great number of bridges, especially on by-roads, not constructed to carry five tons, and in those cases the law does not compel the owners or the persons responsible to rebuild them so as to carry five tons. The noble Earl, I think, does admit that there are bridges of that sort, but he says let them apply to the Minister for power to reconstruct. Surely that is rather hard on them, because although the Minister may be willing to give them some grant it would certainly throw a good deal upon the rates. The Minister would not give them enough money to reconstruct the bridge. My noble friend beside me suggests that money is forthcoming for everything. I wish it were in some cases. May I ask the noble Earl whether, where there is no obligation whatever to carry weights of five tons or anything like it, under this Bill nobody would be able to put up a notice restricting the weight of vehicles going over it to under five tons?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes.

LORD DANESFORT

Well, that is very hard.

LORD LOVAT

May I make a suggestion? If this is the law of the land, why not leave it out of this Bill?

EARL RUSSELL

We have been very careful in drafting this Bill—it is not saving us time, and in fact I think we are being punished for it—not to legislate by reference. We have repealed and re-enacted everything and when you look at the Bill you find everything in it.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I am afraid I did not quite catch all that the noble Earl said, and I should like to ask him whether it would be possible, after a special inquiry by the Minister, to put up a notice board restricting the weight to under five tons?

EARL RUSSELL

I should not like to answer that off-hand, but it is possible to restrict the entire road if it is not suitable for heavy traffic, and that, of course, would include the bridge.

VISCOUNT BRENTFOKD

Perhaps I ought to come to the help of the noble Earl in this matter. This is really a codification of the existing law which has been in existence thirty or forty years.

EARL RUSSELL

Since 1861.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I am afraid my noble friend opposite does not appreciate that it only applies if a bridge authority or highway authority wants to close a road to heavy traffic that is likely to come upon it. I have had the privilege of motoring in Inverness-shire and I know something of the County, though of course I have nothing like the knowledge of the noble Lord. These bridges have in some cases existed for one hundred years or more and until there is a likelihood of heavy traffic the high way authorities have not put up a notice. The question of crofters' cottages was raised by my noble friend. Certainly those cottages are never likely to be visited by a 5-ton lorry, but local authorities have not power at the present time to limit the use of these bridges to vehicles under 5 tons. That is the present law, and I think it is only right that I should support the noble Earl in that matter. If Parliament had wanted to alter the law, or if there had been any real mischief in the existing law, my noble friend or someone else would have come to ask for an alteration of the law. They have not done that because it has not been necessary.

LORD LOVAT

We have had notices specifying a lower weight.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Yes, I know local authorities have done that, but Parliament has not authorised it. Such notices have often warned off people, but that is not the law. My noble friend or his county council may have put them up, if I may use a colloquial expression, as a try-on, and when that is done it generally effects its purpose. I do not think, however, that we ought to alter the whole law without full inquiry. Parliament passed the Bridges Act only last year and I think it would be a little retrograde to alter an existing law which has not worked badly.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after "draws," to insert "it." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 17, after ("draws") insert ("it").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This subsection provides that— Any person or body of persons aggrieved by any restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, may appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, if he considers that the bridge is sufficient….to bear heavy locomotives and light locomotives or heavy locomotives— and so forth, may order the bridge authorities to remove the restriction or prohibition. The result seems to be that any person who owns locomotives and moves heavy goods about the country, who may find that some of the bridges over which he generally passes have notices which would not allow his vehicles to pass over, could go to the Minister, and the Minister might say: "Oh, yes, I will investigate, the matter." I suppose he would send down some official and then the official would say: "Oh, yes, I do not see why this bridge should not carry the weight that the person aggrieved asks for and I shall make the order." What is going to happen if the official sent down by the Ministry is wrong and the bridge breaks down? Who is going to repair it? It seems to me that this is a very dangerous clause, especially in view of the statement made by the noble Earl a short time ago that weights of 80 tons and more might possibly in certain circumstances be carried on the roads. I think it would be much safer to omit this subsection. We have done very well without it in the past and—I am now going to say something which, I am sure, will appeal to the noble Earl—this is an alteration of an old law; do not let us alter the old law. Let us remain as we are.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

It is the duty of a highway authority to provide roads for people to use. The bridges are part of those roads. It is therefore the duty of the highway authority to provide bridges that are equal to the traffic that the road carries.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Any traffic?

EARL RUSSELL

The highway carries certain traffic. The weight borne by the bridges can be limited—your Lordships have just heard of certain cases—so long as it is not limited to anything below five tons. Surely it is perfectly right that anybody who thinks that the local authority is deliberately stating too low a weight—it may be to prevent lorries from cutting up their roads and causing expense in mending them, and not for the legitimate reason that the bridge is not strong enough—it is surely right that any trader who is aggrieved should have the right of appeal. The noble Lord says that some official will go down and look at the bridge, as if he meant that somebody unfit to judge would produce a careless result. But the persons who would carry out that sort of inquiry would be competent engineers, who would consult with the people on the spot, hold an inquiry if necessary and state whether the bridge could carry more weight than the local authority thought it could. I think that perfectly reasonable. We talk about encouraging the trade of the country. We cannot have that trade held up at bridges which are marked with incorrect notices and could really carry heavier loads, and, let us say, lorries carrying agricultural produce and heavy loads could safely use them. Surely we do not want to do anything to stop trade. All that this clause says is that, if a local authority has deliberately marked the bridge with less weight than it can bear, a person aggrieved can appeal to the Minister of Transport to put the matter right, I do not see why your Lordships should have any objection to that.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble Earl says that this might interfere with the trade of the country. Does not the noble Earl know that there are railways in existence, and that these goods which are too heavy to be carried on the roads and which are going to cut up the roads—I am now quoting the noble Earl—at the expense of the ratepayers, who are already very much overburdened, can be carried equally well and probably with greater facility on the railways? In those circumstances I do not think he is correct in saying that the trade of the country is going to be injured. I say that this does not affect the trade of the country, except that it may put increased burdens upon the ratepayer which, by diminishing the money which he has to spend in trade, may reduce the trade of the country.

LORD DANESFORT

I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. Supposing a bridge authority says that a bridge cannot carry more than eight tons, that there is an appeal to the Minister and the Minister says that the bridge can carry fifteen tons. Suppose somebody goes over it with fifteen tons and it is smashed up, and perhaps the person who goes over is smashed up too. Is there, in such a case, any compensation to be made to the owner of the bridge? He turns out to be right in saying that the bridge cannot carry more than eight tons, the Minister has ordered him to allow fifteen tons to be taken over and the bridge is broken. Who is to pay the bridge authority for the loss? It seems to me that the Minister has committed a wrong, but I doubt whether, if the Minister were sued for it, he would have to pay. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me what remedy the bridge owner has when it is proved that he is right and the Minister wrong.

EARL RUSSELL

I have no idea what remedy the bridge authority would have, but I do not think you generally give a remedy when a person who has to administer an Act of Parliament under Parliament makes a mistake. If you did there might be a good many more actions than there are.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Then I understand that there is no remedy, that the person injured in the fall of the bridge has to take his chance? The only remedy, as I understand it, is that an engineer would be sent down. I do not think I am misrepresenting the noble Earl. I have not the same faith in officials that the noble Earl has. I do not think that all officials are by any manner of means competent. On the contrary, I think they are very often incompetent, and so I do not think that this is much of a safeguard. But since, apparently, the noble Earl has the majority of noble Lords on his side—at least I have not heard any noble Lords express approval of my Amendment—I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL

My next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 32, leave out ("heavy locomotives and")

Page 20, line 33, after the first ("or") insert ("to bear").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move to leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6). The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment.

LORD HANWORTH

May I, on behalf of the noble Lord, move to leave out subsection (4)? I do so in order to try to get sonic sort of indication of what the clause means. I feel certain that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will, on reflection, think that it requires some elucidation. Let us just consider what is says. The contemplation is that there should be an appeal in the case of aggrieved persons. That is referred to in the third subsection of this clause. If a decision is given on the lines which the noble Earl has indicated to us—which may be right enough—there may be an appeal. Then subsection (4) says:— The Minister may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrator or otherwise at his option…. I do not quite know what that means. Does it mean that the Minister himself is the arbitrator? And what docs "otherwise" mean? Does it mean not as an arbitrator or a judicial person? Can the Minister decide in some other capacity? I am not sure. Then we have the words "at his option." The Minister, then, is to determine whether he will be the arbitrator or the other person who is to determine the appeal.

Then the subsection goes on to say:— and where he determines any such appeal as arbitrator, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Minister, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section. I am quite uncertain what that means. Who makes it applicable and what terms are applicable? My question arises under the Act to which reference is made. The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, provides two cases in which arbitration is considered. Under Section 25 of that Act— where a person has been injured or killed by an accident on a railway, the Board of Trade, upon application in writing made jointly by the company from whom compensation is claimed and the person if he is injured, or his representatives if he is killed, may, if they think fit, appoint an arbitrator, who shall determine the compensation (if any) to be paid by the company. That is the provision under Section 25. Under Section 30 there is a different method of arbitration:— Whenever the Board of Trade are required to make any award or to decide any difference in any case in which a company is one of the parties, they may appoint an arbitrator to act for them, and his award shall be deemed to be the award or decision of the Board of Trade. It will be observed that in both those cases, in the first case where both parties agree and in the second case when the Board of Trade are required to make an award or to decide any difference, it is not the Minister who makes the award or sits as arbitrator. What the Minister then does, or rather what the Board of Trade are required to do, is this. They may appoint an arbitrator. If you will turn back to the clause with that knowledge you will see that it runs in this way— The Minister may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrator or otherwise at his option…. I am not complaining at all of the purpose of the clause, but I think I shall have the concurrence of your Lordships and of the noble Earl in particular when I say that this clause ought to be redrafted. We ought to be told what are the sections that are intended to apply. It would not be very difficult to find out what are the enactments amending those provisions which it is intended "shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted."

More than that, I think that the words "in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section" are too loose. If they mean that in the case of an appeal it is not the Minister who may determine but that the Minister may appoint some person to determine the appeal as he can under Section 30 of the Regulation of Railways Act, and if there are some provisions which are known and which amend those provisions, let those things be put into the clause and then we shall know something about what we are enacting. Finally, I think that those words "in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section" are too loose. I am not moving this Amendment in any hostile spirit. I am really moving it in the interests of clarity in order that we may know what the clause means. I cannot help feeling that it is not beyond the competence of draftsmen to explain more fully and more clearly, and with less possibility, it may be, even of litigation, what is the purpose of this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 3, leave but subsection (4). (Lord Hanworth)

EARL RUSSELL

It may be a distinguished position to have to deliver a short legal lecture to the Master of the Rolls, but it is certainly a very embarrassing one and I occupy it with some timidity. I thought when I saw it that this clause did not seem new in shape and I find on inquiry that it has been in this form since 1907 and that you can go back a good deal further than that. I have here the Locomotives Act of 1898, in which Section 7 (3) says this:— The Local Government Board may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrators or otherwise at their option and, where they determine any such appeal as arbitrators, Section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1888…. as amended by some other Act shall apply. That is very similar to this.

LORD HANWORTH

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. What is the Act?

EARL RUSSELL

Section 63 of the Act of 1888, "as amended by the Local Government (Determination of Differences) Act, 1896, shall apply for that purpose." As I understand the object of this clause, it is fairly evident. If you will look at subsection (3) at line 31 on page 20 you will see that the Minister— if he considers that the bridge is sufficient, as the case may be, to bear heavy locomotives and light locomotives or heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those then he may make an order. What is the process he is to adopt to arrive at this decision? He will make some inquiry and it will be in the nature of an appeal by the aggrieved person from the decision of the local authority. As I understand this, it seems to me fairly simple and I think it is rather common form. He may determine the appeal either as arbitrator or otherwise. I take it that "otherwise" means that he may determine it as a Minister; that is to say, he may receive reports and consider them, or he may hear the parties or take their written representations and then determine it. No doubt in the great majority of cases it may be he could determine the matter simply on letters. The local authority might write and say that they agree that the weight might be raised to seven tons. Then he determines it in that way. But he may, if he chooses, determine it as arbitrator. If he does that he has to sit as arbitrator under certain provisions as to arbitration, and these provisions of the Act of 1868 would apply.

LORD HANWORTH

Which of them?

EARL RUSSELL

What the provisions are I really do not know.

LORD HANWORTH

There are several.

EARL RUSSELL

I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord; at the moment it is rather more his department to know that sort of thing than mine. Apparently, he does not know without looking it up. But one assumes and supposes that there are provisions as to the way in which the arbitration is to be conducted and as to costs and things of that sort. He may either determine it as Minister on the information he has received or he may sit as a rather formal arbitrator and hold an arbitration, not necessarily sitting by himself. I suppose he might sit by deputy, but he will sit in a judicial manner with counsel before him and so on. That I understand to be the meaning of this. I do not think it is at all unusual in form.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I do not think the noble Earl has altogether appreciated the point that my noble and learned friend was driving home. It is a pity because the noble Earl has shown throughout in this Committee so sincere a desire to improve the form of the Bill that is in his hands. I understand that my noble and learned friend wishes to avoid legislation by reference with its uncertainties and to put everything into the Bill which requires to be put into it. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will take time to consider this clause and be advised about it with a view simply of clearing up what seems to me to be obscure on its face. I must confess that I never before heard of either of these two sections that my noble and learned friend has read and, therefore, I am speaking as a layman. But he read out two separate provisions in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations, and asked the question, which of these two it is intended should apply in this Bill.

Neither of them can refer to arbitrations by the Minister because the Minister in this Bill is a very different person from any one who existed under the Regulation of Railways Act. Therefore some kind of adaptation is necessary. Surely it would be simplicity itself to refer to the sections in the Act—I am afraid that would be legislation by reference—and to set out the sections if necessary so that any one reading subsection (4) might know under which provisions he would come, and which provisions would have to be adapted to the decision of appeals under this clause. I cannot say that I very much like the expression "and in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section." It is rather too much like the favourite phrase mutatis mutandis which leaves as much as possible to the taste of the person concerned. As the person concerned in this case will be a judicial officer and it is not referred to any one in the Department to settle what the application is to be, I dare say that will produce no great difficulty—simply the substitution of the name of one Minister for the name of another Minister and that kind of thing. If there is any possibility of doubt as to what provisions of the Act of 1868 are to be applied here and what the enactments amending those provisions may be, surely, to make, if I may use the expression, a good job of it the noble Earl will take the opportunity on Report of touching this up.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for moving my Amendment and for making a much better speech than I should have made myself.

EARL RUSSELL

I could wish for no better draftsman than the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken and, if he will undertake to assist me in drafting this clause, I should be very glad. I shall certainly look into it between now and Report, and if he will not draft it, I hope he will "vet" it when it is drafted.

LORD HANWORTH

The fact that such a clause is found in the Statute of 1907 is no excuse for its continuance. Indeed, it is high time we altered it and made a better one. I may say, as a matter of personal history, that I was not in Parliament in 1907 or I should have been very glad to have moved such an Amendment as this when I found such a clause in existence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to insert the following new subsection:— (7) Where in pursuance of the powers conferred by or under any enactment repealed by this Act, a conspicuous notice has before the commencement of this Act been placed on or near a bridge prohibiting or restricting the use of the bridge by all vehicles of weights or axle weights greater than such as are specified in the notice, or by vehicles of any particular class or classes of such greater weights or axle weights as aforesaid and such class or classes of vehicles include any class or classes of motor vehicles and trailers within the meaning of this Act, this section shall have effect as if the notice had been placed on or near the bridge in pursuance of this section and related to all motor vehicles and trailers within the meaning of this Act or to motor vehicles and trailers of such last-mentioned class or classes. The noble Lord said: This subsection has relation to the placing of notices and it is really a question of expense. Without this it would appear to throw an unnecessary expense on dock and harbour authorities amongst others, and I move my Amendment in their interests.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL RUSSELL

As I understand it, the object of this subsection is to obtain a privilege. But I would point out that this really is a very trifling expense and that the notices would in any case have to be altered because they would be inapplicable in their present form under this Bill. Under the Bill you do not deal any longer with axle weights but with total laden weights, or with the pressure on a given area of the road surface. The existing notices would be inappropriate, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment but will allow these notices to be brought up to date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

As I understand that the clause will be redrafted with the aid of my noble and learned friend, I do not propose to move my Amendment to leave out this clause.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Weighing of motor vehicles, &c.

26.—(1) Subject to any regulations, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by a highway authority, or for any police constable authorised on behalf of a highway authority by a police authority or a chief officer of police, on production of his authority, to require the person in charge of any motor vehicle to allow the motor vehicle or any trailer drawn thereby to be weighed, either laden or unladen, and the weight transmitted to the road by any parts of the vehicle or trailer in contact with the road to be tested, and for that purpose to proceed to a weighbridge or other machine for weighing vehicles, and if any person in charge of a motor vehicle or a trailer refuses or neglects to comply with any such requirement he shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that it shall not be lawful for any person or police constable so authorised to require the person in charge of the motor vehicle or trailer to unload the vehicle or trailer, or to cause or allow it to be unloaded, for the purpose of being weighed unladen.

(3) Where a motor vehicle or trailer is weighed under this section, a certificate of weight shall be given, and the certificate so given shall exempt the motor vehicle and the trailer, if any, from being weighed so long as it is during the continuance of the same journey carrying the same load.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "weighing vehicles," to insert "erected by or under the control of such highway authority not being more than one mile from the place at which the requirement is made". The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Brentford I beg to move this Amendment. The purpose is to enact that the weighbridge referred to in this clause shall be a public weighbridge. It also says that the driver ought not to be required to go more than a reasonable distance—namely, one mile—off his road in order that he may be weighed in order to find out whether he complies with this clause or not. I hope the Minister may see his way to place this limit of one mile, or some reasonable limit, upon the distance a driver may be required to go.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 2, after ("vehicles") insert ("erected by or under the control of such highway authority not being more than one mile from the place at which the requirement is made").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

I think it would be clearly impossible to accept the limit of one mile. In a sparsely populated district there might be no weighbridge within three miles. As to the protection of the driver from hardship, is not the driver protected by the requirement in subsection (2) which provides that, if he is made to drive more than one mile to the weighbridge by the highway authority and the weight is found to be correct, then the highway authority have to pay compensation for the loss they have caused? That is sufficient protection for him. We know highway authorities are not likely to be unreasonable and, if there was one that was unreasonable and made a man travel three or four miles to a public weighbridge where his weight was found to be correct, then this provision making the highway authority pay compensation would be an effective check. I do not know why he should insist upon the weighbridge being erected by or under the control of the highway authority. If you have a convenient weighbridge in a station yard, why not use it for the purpose if both parties are satisfied it is correct? I do not know why you should put the highway authorities to the expense of erecting a new weighbridge when they can hire one already erected for this purpose, or if there is one in the market place open to any one who pays a toll, only erected by the city and not by the highway authority. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to add to subsection (1):— Provided also that it shall not be lawful for any person or police constable so authorised to exercise the powers of this section with respect to any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act while on service. The noble Earl said: As I read this clause, while it is not lawful for a constable to require a lorry carrying goods to unload, it would be lawful for him to require a char-a-bancs to disgorge all its passengers in order that the unladen vehicle might be weighed. This Amendment is intended to stop that.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not know what the noble Lord means. If the Amendment means what he really says, does not it come to this, that you would be unable to weigh it at any proper time to see if it was within the proper rate until the owner chose to lay it up at the end of the season? He gave a caravan as an instance—

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

No, I said char-a-bancs.

EARL RUSSELL

I am sorry. It seems reasonable enough, but I hardly think it is necessary. The House would hardly believe that a local authority would stop a public service vehicle conveying passengers between two distant points and insist on it being weighed then and there.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

If it is necessary to protect a vehicle carrying goods, it is equally necessary to protect a vehicle carrying passengers.

EARL RUSSELL

No, it might be in quite a different county from that in which it was licensed. If these words were inserted it might even extend to the three or four hours when the vehicle is at rest.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Will he consider it?

EARL RUSSELL

I shall certainly consider it and bring it up if necessary on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 21, after ("given") insert ("to the person in charge of the vehicle").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 26, to insert as a new clause:—

Taking motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence.

" .—(1) Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;
2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine;

Provided that it shall be a defence to proceedings under this section if the accused proves that ho acted in the belief that he had lawful authority, or in the belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the ease, have given his consent, if he had been asked therefor.

(2) If on the trial of any indictment for stealing a motor vehicle the jury are of opinion that the defendant was not guilty of stealing the motor vehicle but was guilty of an offence under this section, the jury may find him guilty of an offence under this section and thereupon he shall be liable to be punished accordingly.

(3) Any constable may without a warrant take into custody any person reasonably suspected by him of having committed an offence under this section.

(4) For the purposes of this section the expression 'owner,' in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement or a hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

The noble Earl said: Now we come to what I mentioned to your Lordships on Second Reading, the clause preventing the stealing of motor cars. It is taken from the Vehicles (Prevention of Unauthorised User) Bill now before the House of Commons. It was thought better it should be in this Bill and I agree with that view because this is in a sense a code of motor law and it is better to have it here and not in a separate Bill. The clause is a long one and it is fairly simple. It says that:— Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable"— then follows the penalties. It is a defence if the accused believes he had lawful authority or that if the owner was asked he would have given his consent. For instance, a kind friend who removed your motor ear from a spreading fire would reasonably be presumed to have had your consent if he had had time to ask it.

The second subsection provides that if on the trial on an indictment the jury are of opinion that the defendant was not guilty of stealing, but was guilty of an offence under this section, they may find the defendant guilty of an offence under this section instead of stealing. Sub-section (3) further provides that a constable may without a warrant take into custody any person reasonably suspected by him of having committed an offence under this section. That, of course, is very important. People steal ears and drive away in them. Our very active and intelligent police have reason to believe the car is stolen, "from information received," and of course it is reasonable that they should be able to arrest and keep the man in custody until they have verified the facts. Then the expression "owner" is defined, so as to refer to the person actually in possession of the vehicle, although it may be only temporarily under a hiring agreement. I think this clause deals with what has been a growing offence, which really does require checking. Your Lordships have seen reason for it in the fact that over and over again the magistrates have had to hold that it was not obvious, and not proved, that there was any intention permanently to deprive the owner of the car. If the defendant was caught before he had had an opportunity of selling the car he always said he was going for a joy ride, and no doubt a great many undoubted thieves have in consequence got off. This clause is intended to meet that difficulty.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 2, at end, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT SUMNER

There is one passage in this new clause which I think the noble Earl will probably agree with me is not very happily phrased, and I can suggest an Amendment which possibly he may be willing to accept. It comes at the beginning of the proviso. The proviso is for the purpose of enacting that there shall be two defences open to the person accused. They are separate defences. They are: (1) if he proves that he acted in the belief that he had lawful authority; and (2) in the belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case have given his consent, if he had been asked therefor. I can quite understand that it is proper that when the accused establishes his belief that he had lawful authority—though I believe that it should be reasonable belief, and not merely capricious, or because he is silly—it should be an answer, but why should it be an answer for some silly fellow—the typical joy rider as I think he is called—to say "Oh! I feel sure that the owner would in the circumstances of the case have given his consent. He is a good fellow, and it was a fine night, and if he had been there he would not have objected."

It is quite possible that the accused believed that, and some tender-hearted magistrates might say: "He is a young man, or she is a good looking young woman, and we had better take his or her word for it." I suggest that those are questions not for the person accused and his belief, but for the opinion of the persons who try the case. Therefore I suggest the better words would be "if in the opinion of the court of summary jurisdiction, or of a jury in the case of a trial on indictment, as the case may be." Then, if the accused can induce the justices or the jury to believe for themselves that the complacent owner would have said "Take the car, I hope you will enjoy yourselves," it is a defence. Otherwise you would have this defence set up every time, sincerely or insincerely, and you would have the same difficulty over and over again, that the tribunal, the court of summary jurisdiction, would be in doubt as to what it ought to do. I cannot see why the foolish and unfounded belief of a silly and unscrupulous person is to act as a defence to the new charge which is set up by this Bill. I hope I have expressed my meaning properly, and that the noble Earl will consider that what I have suggested would improve the clause.

LORD DARLING

I do not know that I can altogether agree with my noble and learned friend. It seems to me that the evils would be met if that were done in this clause which I think it requires—namely, if the word "reasonable" wore put before the word belief in each of the lines where "belief" occurs. The proviso would then read— Provided that it shall be a defence to proceedings under this section if the accused proves that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority, or in the reasonable belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given his consent, if he had been asked therefor. I do not think it is enough to say that if the person acts upon his belief and satisfies the court that he really did believe that he was acting lawfully and properly, therefore he should be acquitted, because some people can persuade others to believe all sorts of nonsense.

There are some silly persons who still believe that the world is flat, and in some respects it is. I think that the accused should be obliged to satisfy the court not only that he believed that he had a right to take the car, or whatever it was, but that it was a reasonable belief. Then, when you come to the other branch, we need not say that the court should think that it was reasonable that he should believe, but that he should have to satisfy them that he did reasonably believe it, by which I mean that he had reasonable ground for believing. If the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, think that the proper expression should not be "reasonable belief" I suggest that the proper words should be "has reasonable grounds of belief." Then another Amendment, it seems to me, would have to be introduced, so as to make it a defence equally in a court of summary jurisdiction or on a trial upon indictment, because if the noble Earl will look at subsection (2) it only alludes to indictment, and there is no provision that this should be a defence before the justices at petty sessions. It seems to me that if either of these alternatives is to be a defence it should be a defence in whatever court the charge may be brought.

EARL HOWE

I should like very strongly, if I may, to support what the two noble and learned Lords have said. It seems to me that the points which have just been raised would have also a very important effect in the case of a car taken under a genuine mistake. There is one thing which I would like to submit to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. In the House of Commons another Bill was introduced besides the Bill introduced by the Home Secretary. That Bill, a Private Member's Bill, provided, first of all, for the offence of taking a car, and, secondly, brought into its ambit the man who induced any individual to take the car, as well as any individual accompanying the man who took the car. I cannot help thinking it would strengthen and improve the present clause if it were possible for the Minister to include the man who incites to taking a car and anybody who accompanies him in the car.

Furthermore, the penalties provided in the Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons were considerably more severe than those provided in the Government Bill. The penalties provided in that Bill were, I think, on summary conviction, imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, instead of three, and a fine not exceedingly £200, instead of £50; and, on indictment, to a term not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding £200. There was a further provision in the Private Member's Bill which was of some importance to the owners of motor cars who happen to lose them in this way—namely, that the fines paid should be paid over to the owner of the car in cases where the car has been abandoned and damaged, and that this should not be a bar to civil proceedings. The Bill also laid down that, if the man who took the car had a driving licence, that licence should automatically be suspended. I submit those points to the noble Earl, because I think they are all valuable points in the Private Member's Bill; but perhaps there was some very good reason why they could not be included in the Amendment put down by the noble Earl.

EARL RUSSELL

I am sorry to say I have not got the noble Earl's knowledge of the Private Member's Bill in another place, but I have no sympathy with the car thief, and any proper methods that can be applied to him I shall be glad to consider. I am grateful to the two noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and their suggestions will be carefully considered, and we will see whether they can be adopted.

LORD ATKIN

I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, was referring to subsection (2) under a slight misapprehension. It looks to me as though subsection (2) ought to extend not merely to a trial on an indictment, but to a charge, before a court of summary jurisdiction. Very often indictable offences can now be tried before a court of summary jurisdiction. They are not tried on indictment; they are tried by the consent of the accused person if the magistrates think he can properly be tried there. That is a class of case where the court trying a man charged with stealing a motor car should have power to amend the charge.

LORD SWAYTHLING

IS it necessary to include subsection (4) in the clause, as the definition of "owner" is included in Clause 107, to apply right through the Bill?

EARL RUSSELL

I will consider all those points. It may be, that it has been lifted bodily from the existing Acts.

EARL HOWE

If I move an Amendment on the Report stage to incorporate some of the provisions of the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place, will the Minister be able to give a little consideration to them with a possibility of including them?

EARL RUSSELL

If the noble Earl does not find on the Report stage any Amendment from the Government to satisfy his view the Government will consider any Amendment that he puts down.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27:

Restrictions on persons being towed by getting on to or tampering with motor vehicles.

27. If any person otherwise than with lawful authority or with reasonable cause—

1. (a) takes or retains hold of or gets on to a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on any road, for the purpose of being drawn or carried; or
2. (b) while a motor vehicle is on a road enters the vehicle or tampers with the brake or other part of its mechanism,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make the Bill apply to all vehicles. For instance, you frequently find small children or others who will hang on to tram cars or trolley omnibuses; in such cases they are just as likely to cause a fatal accident as is any one who hangs on to a motor vehicle. One of the most frequent causes of fatal accidents among children has been through children hanging on the back of horse-drawn vehicles. If this Bill could be made to apply to all vehicles, not only motor vehicles, I think the clause would be improved.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 4, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

I explained to the noble Earl before that this Bill is not intended to apply either to tramcars or horse-drawn vehicles, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment. So far as concerns children hanging on to motor oars, that, I think, can be covered under the Towns Police Clauses Act. It certainly is in London.

EARL HOWE

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out" while in motion." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will carefully consider the wording of this clause I think I shall be able to persuade you that these words are not necessary. What the clause says is that if any person gets on to a motor vehicle while in motion for the purpose of being carried he shall be guilty of an offence. Supposing there was a block of traffic and a person got on to the car and was carried on, I do not think he could be proceeded against under the clause. As the clause now stands the car must at the time of the getting on be in motion.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 5, leave out ("while in motion").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

I considered this point very carefully in going through this clause, and the Amendment is not-necessary. The noble Viscount has not attached sufficient importance to the words "or retains hold." If he gets hold of the trailer while it is in motion it has to be "for the purpose of being drawn or carried." If he does so while it is stationary it also has to be for the purpose of being carried, and the moment the vehicle puts itself in motion and he retains his hold of it, then he commits an offence under the clause. The words are quite sufficient to cover all possible cases.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Earl is quite convinced of that I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28:

Regulations.

28.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act, and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally as to the construction and use of motor vehicles and trailers and otherwise for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make regulations with respect to any of the following matters:— (a) the width, height and length of motor vehicles and trailers and the load carried thereby, the diameter pf wheels, and the width, nature and condition of tyres, of motor vehicles and trailers; (g) the number and nature of brakes, and for securing that brakes, silencers and steering gear shall be efficient and kept in proper working order, and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test and inspect, whether on a road or elsewhere, any such brakes, silencers or steering gear; and different regulations may be made as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicles or as respects the same class or description of vehicles in different circumstances.

(2) Before making regulations, under this Part of this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW (on behalf of Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) moved, after paragraph (g) of subsection (1), to insert as a new paragraph:— (h) the provision of appliances whereby the speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling may be automatically shown so as to be clearly visible to police officers or others on the road and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test or inspect whether on a road or elsewhere any such appliances; The noble Earl said: My noble friend, who has gone away, asked me to move this Amendment. He wanted to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow the reasons why the noble Earl was not able to accept it. He will then possibly be able to raise it again on the Report stage.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

EARL RUSSELL

This is a charming idea, but I really think it is not practical politics. I thought we discussed this last year on the noble Viscount's own Bill. It would be very nice to have a large clock showing exactly the speed at which anybody is going. I think it would be extremely amusing, but it would probably have to be large enough to hide most of the view of the country. I cannot regard it as a serious proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "this Part of." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to require the Minister to consult the representative bodies on all matters connected with them before he makes regulations under the Act. It is thought that consultations of this kind would remove many of the difficulties and that the duty to consult should be extended to all regulations and not merely those made under this Part of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 36, leave out ("this Part of").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

This clause is dealing with this Part of the Bill, and therefore the regulations to be made under it deal with this Part of the Bill. If the noble Earl wants other words in somewhere else he had better put them in, if he thinks they are proper, when we come to the Part of the Bill which more or less deals with them. The regulations here dealt with and contemplated are made in Part I of the Bill under which the Minister does say he will consult with proper representative organisations. I think there has never been any complaint that the Ministry of Transport have not fully consulted.

EARL HOWE

In those circumstances, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "such representative organisations as he thinks fi" and insert "organisations representative of persons affected by the proposed regulations." The noble Lord said: It is obvious what this Amendment is. I am not sure whether I understood from the noble Earl that he was going to adopt it—that is to say the principle of it. I imagine these words express his intention in any case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, lines 37 and 38, leave out (" such representative organisations as he thinks fit ") and insert (" organisations representative of persons affected by the proposed regulations ")—(Lord Newton.)

EARL RUSSELL

I think we are entitled to ask that the Minister should exercise his discretion. There are all kinds of organisations, some of them with the larger titles though the less numerous adherents. The Minister is the proper person to decide which organisations in his view are representative, and those he will consult. I must resist these words.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am sorry the noble Earl has not accepted this Amendment, for it seems to me to be a most reasonable one. Why should we leave everything to the chance ability of the Minister? I suppose we know who the Minister is now, but we do not know who he will be, perhaps, after next week. We certainly do not know who he will be in three or four years time. In those circumstances, I think the Amendment of my noble friend is very reasonable and I hope the noble Earl will accept it.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Earl, if I understood him rightly, said he was in favour of the principle of the Amendment. That being so, I cannot see what the objection is to these words being put into this clause. In fact I feel disposed to divide the Committee on the subject if he resists.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I do not think my noble friend appreciates that his Amendment will not make any difference. If he puts in the words "organisations representative of persons affected by the proposed regulations" it means some organisations, it does not say all, and who is to choose which the "some" are to be? The person who has to consult them. So that it is left exactly where it was before. If I may say so, with little respect for Ministers of any Party, I think on the whole when they are taking advice it is for them to consider whom they will consult.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29:

General law relating to carriages to apply to motor vehicles.

29. Any motor vehicle shall be deemed to be a carriage within the meaning of any Act of Parliament, whether a public general Act or a local Act, and of any rule, regulation or by-law made under any Act of Parliament, and if used as a carriage of any particular class, shall for the purpose of any enactment relating to carriages of any particular class be deemed to be a carriage of that class.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved to leave out Clause 29. The noble Earl said: I do this in order to ask the noble Earl to explain the objects of this clause.

Amendment moved—

Leave out Clause 29.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

EARL RUSSELL

This really is as old as the legislation relating to motor vehicles. It came in first in 1896 when a motor was first allowed to run and was declared to be a carriage within the meaning of any Act of Parliament. There are many objects. I will tell the noble Earl one or two. The provisions as to the rule of the road are contained in the Highways Act, 1835. The Highways Act, 1835, applies to carriages. Motor vehicles did not exist then. It contains rules as to the obstruction of the highways. In the Highways Act they apply to carriages. If you do not declare a motor car to be a carriage, it would be a question for argument in each case whether it did properly come under the Highways Act or not. It has always been declared to be a carriage and there is no reason for making any change.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

Provisions as to Northern Ireland drivers' licences.

30.—(1) If the Minister certifies that satisfactory provision is made by the law of Northern Ireland for the granting of licences to drive motor vehicles, it shall be lawful for the holder of such a licence, unless he is disqualified under this Act for holding or obtaining a licence to drive and be employed in driving a motor vehicle in Great Britain, notwithstanding that he is not the holder of a licence under this Part of this Act:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "licence" where that word first appears, to insert "subject to any restriction with respect to the driving of any class of motor vehicle." The noble Viscount said: These words appear in Clause 4, subsection (3), and it occurred to me it might have been a draftsman's slip not to have included them in this clause. I put them down on the chance that the noble Earl would accept them.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 8, after ("licence") insert ("subject to any restriction with respect to the driving of any class of motor vehicle").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not quite know what the noble Viscount means. These must be restrictions imposed by the licensing authority of Northern Ireland. It would refer to restrictions in this country.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

These people are allowed to drive here if they have a licence in Ireland. Suppose they are limited in Ireland to a certain class of vehicle, then I do not think they ought to be able to drive any other class of vehicle in this country.

EARL RUSSELL

If that is the noble Viscount's intention, I think perhaps it will want redrafting. It is reasonable. If a licence is granted in Ireland restricting it to an invalid carriage or some specially constructed motor vehicle, then the holder of that licence should have a similarly limited licence here. I am not sure whether words are necessary to do that, but if so I think the words of the noble Viscount would have to be redrafted. This clause, as the House will appreciate, has of course been agreed with the Government of Northern Ireland, and I should have to consider any Amendment with them. It is hoped this will be a reciprocal clause so that motor vehicles will be able to drive in each country with the one licence. But I will have the point looked into.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the noble Earl will move something on Report, I shall be satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Savings.

31.—(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise any person to use on any road any motor vehicle so constructed or used as to cause a public or private nuisance, or affect the liability, whether under statute or common law, of the driver or owner so using such a vehicle.

EARL HOWE moved in subsection (1), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment on the same lines as others I have moved to induce the Minister to make this Bill apply to all vehicles on the road. Why cannot we make this Bill apply to all vehicles and have a real code of the highway? I understand the Minister has indicated that in the code he is going to publish when this Bill has become an Act he will refer to all classes of traffic and to all users of the highway. Therefore I venture again to move an Amendment to try to bring other vehicles besides motor vehicles into the ambit of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 34, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Might I ask the noble Earl why the Menai Bridge is selected of all the suspension bridges?

Earl RUSSELL

I have not the least idea, but that again is traditional. It started as far back as 1903, if not before. The Menai Bridge always has had a special clause. There is something special about it.

EARL HOWE

May I say that at a subsequent stage, when we get to the end of the Bill where it is proposed that this Act should be cited as the Road Traffic Act, I shall move an Amendment to call it the Motor Act? It is that and nothing else, and I give that notice to the noble Earl.

EARL RUSSELL

Of course the noble Earl has a right to move any Amendments he likes, but I do not promise to accept them.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

Obligation on owners of motor vehicles to hold insurance policies or other security against third-party risks.

33.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle while being so used such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and a person convicted of an offence under this section shall (unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court- to order a longer period of disqualification) be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence under Part I of this Act for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction.

A person disqualified by virtue of a conviction under this section or of an order made thereunder or holding or obtaining a licence shall, for the purposes of Part I of this Act, be deemed to be disqualified under the provisions of that Part.

(3) Notwithstanding any enactment pre scribing a time within which proceedings may be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, proceedings for an offence under 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.

(4) This Part of this Act shall not extend to vehicles owned by local authorities, by police authorities or by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or to invalid carriages.

EARL HOWE, who had given Notice to move the deletion of all the clauses in Part II of the Bill, said: I am asked to move my first Amendment—[to leave out subsection (1)] by the motoring associations who, while they support the idea that insurance against third-party risks should be universal, object to Part II of the Bill because they have not had an opportunity of considering in detail the insurance schemes involved by these clauses.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but if he is going to move that Part II of the Bill be omitted that is not an Amendment in a form which your Lordships are in the habit of discussing. That is why Amendments have been put down to leave out each clause of this Part of the Bill in the name of the noble Earl, as he will see. It is in accordance with our procedure to amend first and then to omit, and there fore it would be better to take the detailed Amendments first. Then I would suggest to your Lordships that there might be a discussion on the question whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill. If that clause is omitted on the Motion of the noble Earl then the various other clauses of this Part of the Bill would fall, as there would have been an indication that the view taken was that the whole of Part II should be struck out. I would suggest to the noble Earl that, unless he does not wish to move his first Amendment—

EARL HOWE

That is what I was going to do.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sorry, then, that I interrupted the noble Earl, but he seemed to be objecting to the whole of Part II.

EARL HOWE

Yes, objection is taken to the whole of this Part of the Bill, but at the moment I am only moving to leave out subsection (1) of this clause. I was proposing, however, to submit the whole argument which would really apply to the other Amendments, but if I ought to do that at another stage—

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am entirely in the hands of the Committee if your Lordships prefer to have a discussion now on whether Part II of the Bill should stand.

EARL RUSSELL

I think we had better take it now.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Perhaps it would be better. I am sorry I interrupted the noble Earl. I understand that the discussion now will be on the Amendment to leave out subsection (1) and that if subsection (1) is omitted the rest of this Part of the Bill will go.

EARL HOWE

The view taken by the motoring associations is that while insurance companies have been consulted by the Minister—that has been stated by the Minister himself—the scheme for dealing with third-party insurance has not yet been disclosed. There is no safeguard whatever, and the noble Earl was not able in fact in the Second Reading debate to indicate that there was any safeguard against an increase in insurance premiums. The insurance companies would almost be put by this Bill into the position of motor licensing authorities. The view is also taken that compulsory insurance would be effected on the vehicle under subsection (1) of Clause 33, but that reinsurance would depend upon the action of the driver. The motoring associations would also like to know whether it is clear that a vehicle driven by a thief or unauthorised person would still carry insurance to compensate any person injured by the vehicle. I alluded to the point in the Second Reading debate, and the noble Earl said ho did not understand the point I was trying to make.

EARL RUSSELL

I did not. What I said was that we had not attempted to insure a car driven by a thief.

EARL HOWE

What I am anxious to try to bring out—I am afraid I put the point so badly that my meaning was not clear—is whether a person injured by a motor car in such circumstances will in fact get nothing as the result of the insurance policy attaching to the owner of the car? I submit that an injured person would not get any compensation unless the policy attached to the vehicle itself. Furthermore, the motoring associations would like to know what arrangement is made in the case of owners of large fleets of vehicles who carry their own risks by making adequate financial provision. I believe there is some sort of arrangement, and perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would indicate what it is. They would also like to know if the insurance scheme would involve two separate policies, one for third-party risks and one for other risks against which prudent motor owners now insure. They would like to know whether the Government, before finally passing this Part of the Bill, will bring insurance companies and motoring associations together. I would submit most earnestly to the Committee that there is very considerable anxiety on the part of many people about these particular clauses in the Bill.

With the principle, I think, there is entire agreement that we should have some sort of third-party insurance, but we do most emphatically want to know what arrangement the Minister has made with the insurance companies. We want to know whether we cannot have some guarantee against an unreasonably increased premium. The noble Earl during the debate on the Second Reading, if I remember correctly, did state that the insurance companies had indicated that there might be in time an increase in premiums. But he did not say what it was, and undoubtedly a great number of people are alarmed at the prospect that their insurance premiums may go up under this Bill. The motor car now is the vehicle of some of the most humble members of society who are definitely not in a position to face any large increase in third-party insurance premiums. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will be able to give motoring associations and the motoring world generally some ray of hope in his reply. With those few remarks I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 31, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Howe.)

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I also hope that the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships a good deal more information than we have at present, because I do not think that in the present state of our knowledge we are really in a position to discuss in detail and to take the responsibility of assenting to clauses which are novel and complicated and probably as important as any clauses in the Bill. Your Lordships will have perceived that there are two principal points. The first is that it is proposed to disqualify persons from driving motor cars on the road at all unless they have third-party insurance effected and in effective operation. In other words, a person who cannot get himself insured goes off the road. That may be an admirable thing. I do not say one word against the policy of thinning them out in that as in many other ways. The next point is, what is the kind of benefit that is to be derived from this compulsory third-party insurance, not by the motor owners as the noble Earl seems to think—I do not think the Bill or the Government are very much concerned with them—but by the persons injured in a motor accident whom the public desire at present should look to such insurance to pay them for their loss and suffering? The Bill itself tells us very little about the second point, and it leaves us in the dark on a very serious point regarding the first.

I shall put what I have to say as briefly as I can, because I want to indicate to the noble Earl, who, I have no doubt, has gone over all this repeatedly, the points upon which it seems to me that the House must desire information. First of all, I do not gather that this Bill purports to change the law of insurance at all, except, I think, in one inconsiderable respect. It provides that something happening after the accident is not, if the policy has provided for defeasance in that respect, to make the defeasance operative. Does the, public understand that all that this Bill does for them is to give them the benefit, if they can get it, of such right of recovery as the owner of the car or the insured driver may be able to assert against his own insurance? Do they appreciate that all the provisions of the law about liability for accidents will still apply to their own disadvantage? I am quite sure, from the letters that I have read in the Press, that most people think of a bleeding and maimed victim in the road crying aloud to have his wounds staunched and asking that the first thing to be given him shall be an effective policy, followed up by a cheque. That is what they want, and I am afraid that that is what they think they are going to get.

It is very undesirable that the public should be in any doubt about this. It must be clearly understood that the third-party insurers will have a defence to any claim upon the policy, arising either from the fact that the assuree, their own client, would have a good defence for an action brought, or from the fact that the policy itself is, by its terms, already exhausted. If the accident happens and the matter is put in the hands of the insurance company, they are entitled to say: "You can recover nothing from us, since the person injured, who claims to make you liable, cannot do so because he was himself, either in whole or in part, the cause of the accident. If it is all his fault ho cannot recover against you; and if it is partly his fault, by contributory negligence, he cannot recover against you." They are entitled to set up against him these answers, and he will go away un-compensated.

Then again, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is nothing in it that enables the injured person to sue the company direct or to require that any money paid by the insurance company to its customer, their insured, shall be applied totally to the satisfaction of his injuries. The money becomes part of the assets of the person who is insured, and if he is bankrupt it is distributed equally among his creditors. I am aware that there is a Bill in another place which has proceeded, I think, at a leisurely rate, as far as Committee—whether it has emerged from the Committee room or not I am not sure—which, I think, in that respect purports to be intended to alter the law. The result is that this will not be a code. It will be incomplete until we see what alterations in the law are made in this separate Bill.

What the uninstructed public really thinks that it is going to get is a free accident insurance in its own favour, paid for by motor owners and called a third-party insurance. I am afraid that if that idea, which I am quite sure I have fairly described, is the general expectation that prevails, there will be a mighty amount of disappointment when these people realise how little has been done in their favour; and then, I am afraid, the next thing will be that we shall be told that there must be some compulsory national contributory insurance based on contributions from the Treasury, which is the last thing in the world that I suppose even members of the Government in this House will desire to see. But it is a serious thing to raise hopes and then to disappoint them.

On the other hand, the point about the premiums seems to me to be very formidable. There will be a great increase in the number of third-party insurances, and therefore there will, of course, be a big premium income. I do not mean to say that it is not possible that the increase of new business will be so great that it will not involve any increase in the premiums charged. But we ought to know what the underwriters have to say about that. All that I remember being said in the debate on the Second Reading was that they have promised not to take advantage of their opportunity to raise premiums unless they have to do so. But you see what the effect of raising premiums is. It is that every motor driver and motor owner who insures himself, and generally gets a rebate off his premium at the end of the year because there has been no claim, will have to pay a bigger premium than he would otherwise have paid because there are a multitude of careless persons whom this Bill will have compelled to insure themselves. It is not fair that the part of the motoring public that does not knock people down should be compelled to pay extra premiums that they would not otherwise have to incur in order to carry the burden of people who do run over their fellow creatures.

On the other hand, you have the fact that these premiums, especially if they are increased, will be a burden which many motorists cannot face. I do not think that the majority of people now insure themselves against third-party risks. Prudent people with plenty of money and big cars probably always do so, but the people who buy a second-hand car on the instalment principle for £70 and run it until it breaks down, do not, I feel sure, take out this insurance. There are multitudes of cars of all sorts—any kind of motor vehicle is included in this provision—as to which it is quite ridiculous to suppose that the persons who own them either in the ordinary course do so insure or are able so to insure. But the result is that a man cannot have his licence unless he resorts to the alternative of giving security, or getting some approved company to give security for him, which would be just as dear and just as much out of his power. How long do you think people will stand that, and how soon shall we have another shout against the motoring laws, demanding that they should be altered once more in favour of the person who demands speed at any price?

It seems to me that, unless the information of the Government is much more copious than anything that has been revealed to us, they are laying up for themselves two very serious sources of difficulty in the future, and not in the distant future. One is the bitter complaint of the motorist who cannot motor because he cannot afford to pay a premium; and the other is the bitter complaint of the injured person who finds that, owing to the laws not having been altered to suit his particular convenience, he has to abide his own wounds, probably because of his own fault, and gets no compensation, but only sympathy. I suppose that this has been fully enquired into somewhere. I should have thought that there ought to be some kind of public inquiry into the whole subject of insurance against motor accidents, with a report, as the foundation for a Rill like this. At any rate, I suppose that the Government has informed itself in some way by doing something more than make mere communications with the underwriters. It must have obtained or formed some sort of estimate as to the effect on the market, as to premiums and so forth, and I think your Lordships ought to have that information before you can really be asked to deal with this set of clauses. In themselves they are interesting, and in principle I do not propose to say anything against them; but it seems to me to be our business to make them as good as we can while we have the opportunity. I do not know how we are to do that unless we have more information.

LORD SWAYTHLING

I feel that I must support the noble Earl who moved the omission of this subsection as part of his proposal to leave out the whole of Part II of the Bill. While there is much to be said for some method of third-party insurance, I feel that there is even more to be said against it in the manner in which it is suggested in the Bill. If one is to have compulsory third-party insurance, there would appear to be two methods by which it might be arrived at. The first is the method employed in this Bill, under which the vehicles themselves are covered in order that their drivers may be insured against what are known as third-party risks. The second method, which appears to me to have more advantages, is to insure each individual driver against third-party risks. That is to say, that the cover should be removed from the vehicle to the person. The method whereby I think it might be worked is that no driving licence should be issued until the applicant had produced a suitable policy covering him against third-party risks for the whole period during which the licence was to be in force.

A grave defect which was mentioned on Second Reading, and has been referred to this evening, in the system adopted in this Bill affects a large number of accidents which are caused either by stolen motor cars or people joy-riding in somebody else's car. Under the method adopted in this Rill, persons who suffer damage either to themselves or their property in this way will have no redress. If the alternative method which I have suggested were adopted, it is possible that numbers of these thieves or joy-riders would possess driving licences which would protect their victims. It may well be said that a number of them would not have even a driving licence, and I admit that those who were unfortunate enough to be injured by the few of whom that could be said would be unprotected; but I submit to your Lordships that the vast majority of cars would be covered.

It might be said that the cost of this personal third-party insurance, if I may call it so, would be a hardship on those who drive for their living. I do not think that this would be the case. The employer, no doubt, would pay this insurance, as it would mean that the premium en the ordinary insurance on his vehicle would be reduced by that part of the premium which represents the third-party risk carried at present. There is another argument, I think, in favour of this form of third-party insurance. If an insurance company were to refuse at present to cover a motor vehicle whose owner was considered a bad risk—one, that is, who has had many claims against him—the owner can put the vehicle in the name of his wife or of someone else in order that the risk may be covered, and can himself continue to drive it. Under the alternative method I have suggested arrangements of that nature would be impossible. There is another advantage in the method of personal third-party insurance. If the policy covering the driver had to be produced before he was given his driving licence, the mere fact that the driving licence was current would be proof that the third-party risk was covered and there would be no necessity for the certificate of insurance to be carried and to be produced as laid down in Clause 39.

EARL RUSSELL

This general discussion before entering upon the clauses themselves is probably very useful, because I dare say there has been a good deal of misrepresentation about these provisions. I agree with what was said in almost the whole of the earlier part of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, and I will endeavour to put quite shortly before your Lordships the situation as I see it. First of all, what is the grievance that we are attempting to remedy? The grievance is that when people have recovered damages lawfully, to which they were entitled, from people who were liable to pay those damages, they have not received those damages owing to those people not having money. That is the grievance and that is the only grievance that we are proposing to remedy.

It is true, I am afraid, that there is a sort of impression abroad, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that what this Bill does it to give a free insurance policy to every pedestrian. That, of course, is not what it does. It does not alter in any sense, except the tiny one which he pointed out, the general law of legal liability. It does not alter the general law of insurance. If a pedestrian is knocked down through his own fault and is to blame, he will not recover anything under this Bill. It is true, perhaps, that there has been a misapprehension outside about that, but I see no reason for it. Certainly there has never been in our minds and I do not know that there has been in the mind of anybody, a suggestion to make motorists liable when they have not committed any tort. That would be a case for compensation like workmen's compensation and not a case of insurance or damages. The Bill does not cover any case except those where the motorist is to-day legally liable, and we must be perfectly clear about that.

Then the accidents which the Bill covers, as your Lordships know, are injury to life and limb. The noble Earl asked me what difference it would make to the conduct of an insurance business. I think the answer is that it need make hardly any difference. In any case, where a person takes out the ordinary comprehensive motor policy, as it is called, which covers damage to his car, stealing his rugs and all sorts of things, including third-party insurance now, he will continue to take out exactly the same policy in the future if he desires to do so. The only difference it will make is that he will be provided by his insurance company with a card called a certificate of insurance which is to be carried on every car to which the insurance relates. That is the only difference—that he will get another card to carry on his car. If a person desires to make any particular conditions such as he makes now—the condition that he alone shall drive in consideration of a reduction of premium, or that the owner and one named person only shall drive, which is sometimes put in a policy, or any other condition of that sort—he may still make that condition. He may still have a policy with that condition in it, subject only to this, that the condition must be shown upon the insurance card which is carried on the car so that it can be seen when anybody is driving the car whether he is within the limited terms of the policy, if it is a limited policy. The obligation imposed upon him is a separate obligation apart from the licence, and it is imposed by the first clause in the Part of the Bill which we are now discussing.

So far as the increase in premium is concerned, I thought I made that perfectly clear, but I will tell your Lordships again the view that was taken by the insurance companies. What they said was:" We are not going to raise our premiums right away as a protest against this Bill or as a suggestion in advance that it must raise our premiums. "They said, as the noble and learned Viscount has said," We think it will probably increase the number of claims and we think it will very likely increase the quantum, the amount, of each claim. Therefore it may happen, we thsink it probably will happen, that we shall be actuarially justified and compelled to raise our premiums." To that extent no doubt premiums may be raised, but I have no reason to suppose that it will be by very much. To that extent it may be that they will have to raise their premiums. If that is justified actuarially, no one can make any complaint about it. The noble and learned Viscount seemed to think it would be a grievance to those who drove carefully that they had to pay for those who drove carelessly. That is exactly what happens now. I have paid premiums for the last three years without having any accidents or getting any benefits. Those premiums went to pay for those who did not drive so well. The same thing happens in all forms of insurance. The premiums go to meet the losses of the minority and I do not see any distinction in this case.

The noble Viscount went a great deal too far when he talked about persons not being able to bear the premium. Anyone able to afford a motor car or motor cycle will be able to afford this premium for third-party insurance. I am told the figure is something like 15s. for the insurance of a motor cycle in respect of injury to life and limb to an unlimited extent, which is the usual thing. In the worst case it will be 30s. For motor cars it will be something higher and it depends, of course, as it does to-day, on the size and horse power of the car. The premium for the motor cyclist, who is represented as a poor man who will not be able to pay it, will be quite insignificant. The effect in the end is going to be this that, where motorists are properly and legally liable for accidents, then the person injured will receive damages. It is no scheme of comprehensive insurance, no scheme of compensation like the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the pedestrian who is injured through his own fault will not receive damages then any more than he does now. I do not see any moral or legal reason why he should. The grievance we set out to remove was the grievance that, where people had a legitimate claim for damages and had succeeded and proved their claim, they did not get the money. Then, as I said, there is a Bill on the stocks which will in due course reach your Lordships' House providing against the anomalous face that in a bankruptcy the insurance money is paid over to the liquidator and not to the insured person. It is said that the obligation of the insurance company is to pay the money to the insured and not to the injured person. That is perfectly true and I put that question to the representatives of the insurance companies because it seemed to me that the insured might take the money and make away with it, but they told me that their invariable practice is to pay the money to the injured person and get the receipt from him. I presume that they take power in their policies to do that.

It may be of interest to noble Lords to know, while I am speaking of policies, that in their policies they will still retain the power to make the insured bear the first £10, the first £20 or the first £'50, as the case may be, of any loss if they think proper to do so. The only alteration will be this, that, vis-a-vis the public, the full insurance is taken by the insurance company. The recovery of the excess is a matter between them and their insured. The man injured on the road is covered, but the man who is insured is sued for the excess unless he voluntarily contributes it. The one thing we have to avoid is that there should be any doubt as to the payment of compensation to the insured person where it should be properly paid.

There was a question as to how those who carry their own insurance will manage. The answer is that the scheme is not fully worked out yet. It will require a code of regulations. We have the general idea in our minds and I do not see why it should not work. There will have to be a scheme by which someone will give them a bond, in the case of commercial vehicles up to £25,000, and when they have got that bond it will be a guarantee that they will pay any loss they suffer. The reason is obvious. The London and North Eastern Railway, for instance, is not likely to fail to pay-its claims; it may be that there are other people who are not likely to pay their claims. It is obvious, however, that neither the Minister nor any other official person can be expected to make a list of those who can be trusted and those who cannot, and therefore you must apply to them some simple rule which matches them all. The rule is the obtaining of this bond. That bond, of course, has to be kept up. If any accident is not met, then, until the bond is made up again, they would not be insured. All these people who carry their own insurance would, with the minimum of trouble, be able to come into the scheme. I have no reason to think it will cause any difficulty.

Then there is the bogey of which we have heard so much, the private insurer, the man who cannot get insured. I have often heard of him but I have not met him. I asked the insurance companies and they could not give me an instance. They said they did not know of any man who had been definitely refused insurance. I doubt whether there are very many more than a minute number of instances. The noble Lord talked about the car driven by the thief and said what a serious breakdown it was in a complete system. I do not think that the .5 or .2 per cent. of accidents due to this cause is a breach of the system. It is one of those theoretical objections. I never said it was complete; it does not profess to be complete. The noble Lord feared that there might be some system in the future of compulsory insurance of a man whether he ought to be paid or not. I do not know, but it is not part of this scheme. The scheme before your Lordships to-day is intended simply and solely to provide for the case where under the present law, insured as most people are at present, a man becomes liable to pay damages to a third party and fails to pay them. This scheme is intended to meet that case and to provide that that failure shall not occur. That, I think, covers the whole of the scheme.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

Will the noble Earl clear up a matter which he mentioned? He said he was instructed by the underwriters, as I understood, that the premium on the motor cycle is 15s. Just see what that means. A carelessly driven motor cycle may cause a Rolls Royce full of opulent magnates without any fault on their side to smash into a wall and to break up the whole lot of them. They have all got to be paid, those who survive, for their injuries and suffering. Are we really to believe that all that can be got for 15s.? If so, how many times in the course of one year on one and the same policy will this death dealing instrument be able to repeat the operation? Surely there must be something wrong about a premium of 15s. being charged. Or else it must be because the whole burden falls upon the innocent. It cannot be done out of 15s. or out of any multiple of 15s. and it must therefore be that the whole burden of insurance is going by law, by this Bill and not by voluntary insurance, to be plastered over all the innocent persons.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not understand what the Bill has got to do with this. This is what is obtaining now. I shall obtain rates for the noble Viscount, but I can safely say that from 15s. to 30s. is the amount of the risk at the outside for the motor cycle. I shall get him quotations as he is perhaps not very familiar with the premiums charged. The whole principle of insurance is that the majority pay for the minority. You club together so that when a loss falls it is spread over a large number.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

That is a reason against making it compulsory by law.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Is the provision about the bond actually in the Bill?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, it is.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I happened to see the other day a case where the driver of a motor cycle, on being asked what his means were, stated £1 a week. I should say that there are a good many riders of the ages of sixteen and seventeen who certainly would not be earning more than £1 a week. Is it possible that they are keeping up their insurances, or that the insurance companies will insure them for the premium stated?

EARL HOWE

There is still one question which I would like to ask the noble Earl, and that is on the question of a possible increase of premiums. I took down the words which he used, and they are as follows: "I have no reason to suppose that the increase will be so very large." I would like to ask the noble Earl what really is going to happen supposing the premiums do rise? Have the Government got any safeguard, or can they do anything? Have they provided in anyway against an increase of premiums? If, as a result of the passage of this Bill, the hopes of the insurance companies are not found to be justified in fact, and they do find that they have simply got to raise the motor premiums, what is going to happen? It seems to me that there would be a very large section of the population, who are not very well off but who own motor vehicles, and who are entitled by law, to-day, to use them, who would be absolutely unable to do so, although they have not been parties to any of the accidents which have brought about the increases of premiums.

EARL STANHOPE

Am I not right in thinking that it is not the property of the private person which is insured but it is only life and personal injuries?

EARL RUSSELL

That is so. The Rolls-Royce does not come in. It is only life and personal injury and not property. The Government is not taking control of the insurance companies. If the premiums rise it will be for actuarial reasons, and people will have to pay the increased premiums. I would remind the noble Earl that the premiums for third-party risks have already risen in the last few years by 25 to 40 per cent., owing to the increase in claims. If they rise further it will have nothing to do with the Government, any more than a rise in the price of any other commodity. The Government are not undertaking to control the insurance companies.

EARL HOWE

Does it mean that the Government are going to stand by without doing anything, or having any safeguard inserted in the Bill against a possible rise in premium? It does not matter to me, of course, what happens to the Government, but it seems to me that if this thing happens the Government would be faced by an extraordinarily difficult situation. In any event the motor world has very justifiable grounds for great anxiety upon this point. I would like to remind your Lordships that the representatives of the great motor organisations have not been consulted by the noble Earl in any respect, and therefore they are justifiably very anxious about this matter. If, as a result of this Bill, a rise in premiums does take place, and a number of people are not able to use their cars, will it not have its repercussions in industry as a whole? I think we ought to have some safeguard against a large rise in premiums.

EARL RUSSELL

There was once a complaint against a Government or a member of a Government that they "made the price of bread and Lollards rise." This may, or may not, make premiums rise, but I do not know what it is suggested that the Government should do. It is nothing of our business to interfere with the business of the insurance companies, unless it is proposed to nationalise it. If the noble Earl is prepared to lead a crusade for that purpose, then perhaps we might join him.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ATKIN

I am not moving an Amendment, but I am not quite satisfied at present that the wording of subsection (1), which incorporates, of course, the provisions in Section 34, is quite sufficient to meet what is intended. The subsection reads:— It shall not be lawful for any person"— that includes the owner-driver and chauffeur— to use or to cause or permit any other person to use"— that is the owner who allows his chauffeur or servant to drive— a motor vehicle on a road, unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle while being so used such a policy of insurance, or such a security in respect of third-party risks, as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act. It seems quite clear, as far as that is concerned, that a man would not be committing a breach of the clause if he permitted a person to use a motor car in respect of which there was a policy, even although the person using it would not expose the owner to a liability. I think that is so. I want to make quite sure that it is not so.

The words are "in force in relation to the vehicle while being so used." That covers any policy that is in existence in relation to that vehicle. You want words which make it quite plain that the owner of the vehicle is exposed to liability for negligent user of that vehicle by the person who is then using or about to use it. It is a very subtle point, but it does not seem to me to be made quite plain by the words of Clause 34, which requires that the policy must be a policy…which insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him. We want to be quite certain that this policy does cover a liability to a third person for an accident caused by the negligence of the person using the car. I am not quite sure that the words cover the intention of the draftsman of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether an Amendment is necessary.

EARL RUSSELL

I confess that I find no difficulty in construing the clause to mean what it is intended to mean, but I will, of course, consider what the noble and learned Lord has said.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (4), after the second "authorities," to insert "by harbour or dock authorities constituted by Act of Parliament." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give the same exemption to harbour and dock authorities as to local authorities and police authorities.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 21, after ("authorities") insert the said words.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL RUSSELL

It is perfectly true that most of these bodies are not bodies working for profit, but I think they are not quite in the same position as local authorities. These authorities ought to have no difficulty in doing what the great railway companies and the great motor omnibus companies do—obtain a security for their insurance. After all, the exemption of a local authority is rather a special thing. A local authority is part of the general government of the country. I do not think you can put a commercial undertaking, even if it does not work technically for profit, on the same footing. If we accepted the Amendment, I am not sure what other kinds of undertakings might think they ought to be included.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I do not press the Amendment.

LORD ATKIN

Clause 33 again extends the period of limitation, and the noble Earl has a similar provision in Clause 7 (5). I drew attention to the fact that proceedings for an offence might be brought within three months from the date at which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed. It might extend the period of limitation to six, seven, or eight years, so long as the particular prosecutor might be proved not to have known of the offence at the time, but learned of it within three months of the date of prosecution. That obviously is a flaw in a limitation period in respect of an offence. The noble Earl promised to look into it in respect of Clause 7 (5). Perhaps he would be able to look into it here.

EARL RUSSELL

It is the same point?

LORD ATKIN

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (4), after "District," to insert "or to a vehicle owned by a person who satisfies the Minister that he makes adequate financial provision for meeting any liability that may be incurred by such person in respect of any injury or damage occasioned by such vehicle." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved as an invitation to the Government to tell us the precise passage where we can find out what is to be done in the case of large undertakings which carry their own insurance. The Amendment is moved on behalf of some of the biggest organisations in the country, such as the London General Omnibus Company, Carter, Patersons, and others, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to indicate exactly where we are to look in order to find this.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 22, after ("District") insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Earl will find it in Clause 35. I do not really think the London General Omnibus Company are going to take any serious exception to this provision. We have been in touch with them.

EARL HOWE

I do not wish to misrepresent them. They merely wanted this Amendment moved in order to clarify the position, if possible.

EARL RUSSELL

I will go into it fully when we come to Clause 35.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SWAYTHLING moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "or to invalid carriages." The noble Lord said: On referring to the First Schedule, it will be noticed that the maximum speed limit for invalid carriages is sixteen miles an hour. It is apparent that an invalid carriage going at this speed can do an appreciable amount of damage. It might mount the pavement and knock people over. If third-party insurance is to be made compulsory, it seems to me that invalid carriages should be included.

Amendment moved— Page 27, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("or to invalid carriages").—(Lord Swaythling.)

EARL RUSSELL

I do not know whether the noble Lord has any evidence that this happens. I have not. An invalid carriage cannot weigh more than five cwt. It is really not very much more than an animated bath chair. I doubt whether it could do anybody any serious damage. I suppose it would very seldom travel at a speed of sixteen miles an hour. We do not think there is any ease for this.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to be hit by a 5 cwt. vehicle travelling at sixteen miles an hour. I have seen them myself going at a considerable speed. I hope the noble Earl will consider this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It does not include an ambulance?

EARL RUSSELL

No, under the definition the vehicle cannot weigh more than 5 cwt.

LORD SWAYTHLING

An invalid carriage weighing 5 cwt. and going at sixteen miles an hour can do considerable damage, particularly to children. It might knock over a perambulator. The noble Earl stated that third-party risks for motor bicycles could be covered for 15s. or 30s. It would seem to me that if that is the case invalid carriages could be covered for that or even less. I do not think it is any hardship on the owner of an invalid carriage to pay for third-party insurance. I really think that the noble Earl might accept this Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

When you consider the class of people who have to use invalid carriages I must say I am very reluctant to impose upon them any unnecessary financial burden. Probably they would not be able to pay themselves; probably some institution would pay, and I really do not think there is any case for it. If the noble Lord could give us any statistics then it would be reasonable to consider it.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

I do not think the noble Earl need feel too great a sympathy with the owners of invalid carriages, because any one who can afford a motor invalid carriage can afford this expense.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "nor shall this Part of this Act apply to tram-cars 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." The noble Lord said: This is somewhat different from the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, because it is intended to apply to tramcars or motor trolley vehicles, the use of which is authorised or regulated by special Acts of Parliament. Some of these Acts have schemes of insurance in them. Others have their-money regulated altogether by the terms of a special Act, and the general Act may have the effect of over-riding those special clauses in a way that may make it difficult to deal with in the future.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)

EARL RUSSELL

It is not intended that this Part of the Act should apply to any vehicles other than those to which Part I is applicable. I will do one of two things, whichever the noble Lord prefers: either accept this Amendment now, and redraft it afterwards, or bring in a drafting Amendment to make it perfectly clear; but, of course, it is not intended to apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles.

LORD ASKWITH

I would rather that the noble Earl accepted it now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

I am very grateful to your Lordships for having sat so long enabling us to get so far with the business.

House resumed.