Lords Sitting of 18 December 1929

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it will perhaps be within the recollection of your Lordships that at the beginning of business yesterday there was left a certain ambiguity in the arrangements for the remainder of the sittings of the House before the Recess, and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House was good enough to say that I might confer with him privately upon the subject. I have been able to exchange a few words with him and I think your Lordships will be very much obliged if he would say how the situation strikes him after that conversation.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. I think it is of great assistance in every way in the conduct of our business that we should consult together from time to time. The first question which arises is whether the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill can possibly be finished to-night. I do not think it can. Of course if it could be finished, that would be an end of the difficulties regarding future arrangements. Assuming that it is not finished to-night, I think the debate on the very important Bill which is in the hands of my noble friend Lord Arnold on Second Reading to-morrow will be finished before eight o'clock, so that, if necessary, I suggest that we might sit after dinner to-morrow in order to make certain of getting through the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill before we go away for the Christmas vacation. I hope that will not be too great a strain. I am sure it is extremely important that it should be done. We made every effort to have this Bill introduced in your Lordships' House and the discussions in Committee have been extremely satisfactory, but it is important that we should get to the end of the Committee
1462
stage before we go away for the Christmas vacation. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out, it is very desirable that the Bill should be reprinted with the Amendments introduced in order that it may be carefully considered before the Report stage. If necessary I will make that proposition for to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, of course there is no objection whatever to sitting after dinner to-night. It was quite understood that we should do so and no doubt we shall make very considerable progress with the Bill to-night. As the noble and learned Lord said, to-morrow is primarily devoted to the discussion of the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is quite impossible for me to say straight off how long that debate will take. I have not yet heard the number of noble Lords who are likely to speak, but no doubt there will be several and the speeches will be, I will not say very long, but full speeches upon a topic of such great importance. Whether it will be possible to conclude the debate before dinner to-morrow it is impossible to say, but I have no doubt that if that debate cannot be concluded before dinner the noble and learned Lord would wish us to sit after dinner in order to finish it. It is quite clear in the face of that uncertainty as to what may happen, that it may be a little difficult to say if an after-dinner sitting to-morrow will be available for further progress on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill.
I do not know how it will work out, or what noble Lords would prefer to do, but no doubt we shall be able to get an expression of opinion in the course of the evening from all parts of your Lordships' House. Whether noble Lords would prefer that course rather than to sit for a couple of hours on Friday I do not know. That is a matter which must wait until we can get an expression of opinion as to the convenience of noble Lords. One thing I think we may take positively from the noble and learned Lord, and that is that in no circumstances will your Lordships' House be sitting after the close of this week.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to say that we on these Benches

1463
shall do everything we can to assist His Majesty's Government in regard to the Road Traffic Bill. For a great many years it has been the custom of the noble Marquess to express the wish that Governments would introduce important Bills into your Lordships' House at an early part of the Session. His Majesty's Government have been good enough to do so on this occasion, and I think we ought to have given them a great deal more assistance in passing this Bill than we have given up to the present. It would have been quite unnecessary, I think, to ask us to sit on Friday if unfortunately it had not been for the refusal of the noble Marquess to sit late on various occasions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not recollect them.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: On Thursday evening we might very well have sat after dinner, and we might have sat on Friday. I think His Majesty's Government intimated their readiness to sit on Thursday night and also on Friday. On Monday we were allowed to sit in the evening, but last night we were not. I venture to say that there was not a single member of your Lordships' House who was present here last night who would not have wished to sit after dinner. The noble Marquess was good enough the other day to make some reference to my absence on Monday night. He himself was absent at the adjournment of the House yesterday evening.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl is inclined to be a little personal. The truth is that I was here until half-past seven, and I think that, if we were to east up the balance between the noble Earl's attendances and my own, I need have no fear of the result.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I did not begin to be personal. It was the noble Marquess himself. He sneered at me on Monday night for my absence on that day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was evident that the noble Earl had been enjoying himself.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: And the noble Marquess himself last night. If the noble Marquess begins to talk like this, we are bound to point out that it is very easy for those who have command
1464
of large battalions, who can order attendance in your Lordships' House one night and tell their followers to go away another night, to be able to be present exactly on those occasions which are convenient to them, but it is very much more difficult for members of your Lordships' House who, for many week past, have made engagements of a public or semi-public character, to throw them over at the very last moment. I regret very much the fact that your Lordships' House was not allowed to sit either on Thursday night after dinner or on Friday or after dinner last night. I believe that every body who was here would have been ready to sit on. To-day, unfortunately, as the result of this refusal to sit—.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite unaware of this refusal of which the noble Earl speaks. I do not recollect that I ever did anything of the kind.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: But we know quite well that there was a discussion between the two noble Lords only the other day as to what had been understood in conversations which had taken place privately. The result, at any rate, is that we are being asked to do what is really the most inconvenient thing of all—namely, to sit both early and late to-day. I venture to think that it would have been a great deal better if we had sat on those occasions when His Majesty's Government asked us to do so during the last few days. We should have been able to make very much better progress with the Bill than we have made, and I am bound to say that, on the whole, it is no encouragement to His Majesty's Government on future occasions to bring forward Bills early in this House if they are not allowed to take the Committee stage as and when they like. I only wish to say to the noble and learned Lord opposite that I am quite ready, speaking for my friends and for myself, to sit whenever it is convenient to your Lordships and to be present as often as we possibly can in view of the engagements that we may have made some time ago.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for what he has said, and I am also really much obliged to the noble Marquess for the assistance that he has given us from time to time in getting on with the business of this House. I do not desire to be a critic in any sense. As the noble Earl

1465
properly says, if we desire to make this House an important element in our legislative system, we must take the opportunity, when important Bills are brought here at an early stage, to deal with them in a business-like manner and give them sufficient time. This, as I have said more than once, has been our endeavour and was one of the motives for the introduction of the Road Traffic Bill in this House. It is not a political Bill in any sense, but it is a Bill with which this House is admirably suited to deal, for it involves an, immense amount of discussion and detail. Any one who has followed the discussions that we have had can only come to the conclusion that this House has done its work in an admirable manner. That, at any rate, is my opinion.
Now for the future. Matters are arranged for this evening, and I do not think anybody can say until after this evening, when we know how far we have got with the Amendments, what further time we shall want. Of course, I wish to make it quite clear, as the noble Marquess has said, that the chief business to-morrow is the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill. There will be no desire on our part, and certainly no attempt, in any way to cut short the discussion upon that extremely important Bill. Beyond that, if we can get time to-morrow after dinner, I shall ask the House to sit and, if possible, to finish the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. If it is necessary to sit on Friday morning, I hope that the noble Earl and the noble Marquess will assist mo in finishing the Committee stage before we rise for Christmas. I do not want to be too definite, because nobody can tell exactly how long these discussions may take, but that is our expectation, and I know that I shall have the help both of the noble Marquess and of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, if your Lordships would allow a quite unofficial member, who speaks for nobody except himself but who has taken considerable interest in the Road Traffic Bill, to express an opinion, I personally hope that, if it is a choice between sitting after dinner on Thursday and sitting on Friday, we shall sit on Friday. I believe, though I admit that your Lordships are capable of doing your work admirably at any time, that you do better before dinner than late in the evening.
1466
That is only my impression, perhaps founded on purely personal experience. In any case, I certainly hope that nothing that your Lordships have done will discourage this Government—I am sure it ought not to do so—from introducing important Bills into your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: My Lords. I hope I may be forgiven if, like my noble friend who has just spoken, I make a submission upon this point. Like him, I have tried to take as great a part as I could in the discussions on the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, and I agree with him, if it is a choice between sitting after dinner tomorrow and sitting on Friday, in hoping that we shall sit on Friday. As a matter of fact, in my own case, I have a public engagement tomorrow night. This was made when I understood from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House what the business of the week was to be. I hope, therefore, that, if it is possible to meet on Friday morning instead of after dinner to-morrow, this will be done. After what the Leader of the Liberal Party has been saying about those of us who were ready to sit on last night, I think I might remind the House that there was at least one rather important engagement after dinner last night which might have attracted some of your Lordships.
LORD PARMOOR: Let me make it quite clear. I think we shall want both Thursday evening and Friday morning. If there is a choice between the two, I will consider carefully what noble Lords have said.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOOTLE WATER RATE) ORDER, 1929.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated 26th September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the City of Liverpool and the County Borough of Bootle, which was

1467
presented on the 29th October, 1929, be approved.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS) WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Preamble, page 1, line 5, after ("which") insert ("as amended").
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("Orders") insert ("as amended and").
Schedule, page 9, line 17, after (" that ") insert (" (a) The total quantity of land acquired under this article by the undertakers for the purpose of the protection of waters shall not exceed twenty-five acres; and
(b)").
Page 14, line 11, after ("purposes") insert ("as amended by Section seventy-seven of the Local Government Act, 1929")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("such") and insert ("the domestic")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("is to") and insert ("will")
Page 22, line 46, leave out ("does not convey") and insert ("is not a main conveying")
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE CRUISERS.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether, in consequence of the reduction announced in the number of cruisers to be maintained, the Board of Admiralty has been relieved in any way of its responsibilities for defence; and

1468

2. Whether the cruisers so reduced will be found from those allotted to the Battle Fleets or from those guarding the trade routes;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I need make no excuses to your Lordships for bringing before the House the matters that I have placed upon the Paper. This House has always taken a very particular interest in all that concerns the Navy and the overseas trade which that Navy guards. So long ago as the beginning of the eighteenth century I find in the Journals of this House a rather curious entry to the effect that—
"a petition of several merchants on behalf of themselves and others, traders of the City of London, was presented to the House whereby they complained of great losses by the ill-timing of convoys and for want of cruizers; so that they durst no longer engage the remainder of their estates, to carry on their several trades unless immediate care was taken to remedy these two main causes of their misfortunes."
The predecessors of your Lordships appointed a Committee to go into those matters, and in the end a long Address was presented to the reigning Sovereign. I will only read to your Lordships a passage from it:—
"May it please Your Majesty, it is a most undoubted maxim that the honour, security and wealth of the Kingdom does depend on the protection and encouragement of trade and the improving and right managing the Naval Strength."
Coming to much more recent times, just eighteen years ago it was by the action of this House, and of this House alone, that the ratification of the Declaration of London was stopped—an Act on the part of this House which proved of great benefit not only to this country and to the Empire, but to our Allies and associates, in the Great War.
The Motion which I have placed on the Paper with regard to cruisers I move with no Party motives and with no hostile intent. I am purely out to seek information. I may say quite frankly that I am in favour of a reduction of armaments as great as is compatible with our security and our responsibilities, and I hope, as I believe all your Lordships hope, that the forthcoming Naval Conference may be able to arrive at an agreement satisfactory to all parties. But perhaps I may be allowed to utter one word of caution. Even if we obtain full

1469
agreement between the five major Naval Powers who have been invited to this Conference, we shall not obtain a satisfactory reduction of armaments unless we succeed in getting all other nations, even if they have only small navies, also to agree to limitation. Germany was not invited to the Washington Conference, and of course she is not in any way bound by the limitations which those Powers who attended the Conference agreed to for themselves. Therefore, quite legitimately, she has recently built a 10,000-ton ship of high speed, well armoured and carrying 11-inch guns. That ship is too fast to be caught by any battleship, and she is too powerful to be dealt with by any cruiser built under the limitations of the Washington Conference. The only type of ship which could deal with that German ship is, I believe, a battle cruiser. Therefore, your Lordships will realise that if we and other Powers have to maintain in the future battle-cruisers, it will be necessary for us to keep a larger number of capital ships than otherwise might be necessary.
I think I shall obtain general agreement with the statement that it is for the Government, and for the Government alone, to lay down policy, and I hope I shall obtain equal agreement when I say that a wise Government consults its experts as to the instruments which are necessary to carry out its policy; and that if it is unable or unwilling to provide those instruments, then a wise Government changes its policy. I am quite sure I shall obtain agreement from the noble and gallant Lord opposite, because he put that statement in an admirable phrase when he addressed your Lordships last week. He then said:—
"There is an old saying about strategy, and that is that strategy and policy go hand in hand. If strategy and policy do not go hand in hand, then the Government of the country where that mistake is made is bound to suffer."
The history of this country, I think, shows the correctness of that statement. Unfortunately, the history of other countries shows that it is not only the Government which suffers, but the country itself.
What has been the policy of the Governments of this country in the past, at any rate since the signing of Peace at the conclusion of the Great War? The policy of successive Governments has been
1470
solely one of defence and of the preservation of peace. The reason is adequate and convincing. It is that no country stands to gain so little by war as this country, and no country runs the risk of losing so much. This policy, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, has been the defence of the coasts of the whole Empire, and the freedom of sea-passage to and from all its parts. The instruments which naval experts have consistently recommended to carry out this policy have included among other things a minimum of seventy cruisers. At the very last Board meeting which I attended we were considering a Memorandum on the policy of the Admiralty drawn up by the Naval Staff, and in it I well remember a phrase in which it was stated that seventy cruisers were required for the necessities of the Empire. That Memorandum was agreed to unanimously by the Board of Admiralty, and I think every one of us except, I believe, the Financial Secretary, was present at that meeting.
I am sorry that I have had to postpone this debate from last week, because my noble friend Lord Bridgeman would then have been able to be present, whereas to-day he is unfortunately unable to attend by reason of a previous engagement of a public character. He would have been able to tell your Lordships that those seventy cruisers included ships belonging to navies of the Dominions, and also ten ships over age. That was agreed to at the Conference at Geneva in 1927, and it has been the policy of the Government since that date. Four months later, that is, instead of May this year, in September, there appeared in the Press what seems to have been an authoritative statement. At any rate it was one which has not been denied. I will quote the gist of it from The Times of September 17, in which it was stated that the position which had been reached was that Great Britain would be perfectly content with fifteen 8-inch gun cruisers of roughly 10,000 tons, and thirty-five cruisers of approximately 6,500 tons each and carrying 6-inch guns—a total of fifty cruisers instead of seventy. The article added that in the view of the Government and of the Admiralty this would be a sufficient force to meet all our responsibilities.
I should like to ask whether this number of fifty is an inclusive figure, as was the seventy. Does it include the ships belonging to the navies of the Dominions, and does it also include those which we could retain although they had reached the age limit, and were indeed past it? If it is an inclusive figure it is obvious that the responsibilities for which fifty cruisers were considered sufficient in September must be less than the responsibilities of providing adequate security for British territory and the freedom of sea passage to and from all parts of the Empire, for which seventy cruisers were considered necessary in May. I submit that the country is entitled to be told what has been the change of policy. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord opposite will also be able to clear up the point as to what it is the fifty cruisers do and do not include. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that we ought to be clear on that point, and at any rate you will agree that if we sign our names to an agreement only to maintain fifty cruisers, that will be the total number which we can at any time maintain. There could be no question, if unfortunately a situation arose which might perhaps become strained, of our then delaying the breaking up of cruisers, or of hurrying forward the building of those which were already under construction. To do anything of that kind would obviously place us in the wrong, and might even lay us open to the accusation of being the aggressor State, and, in any case, is directly contrary to the method by which England in the past has fulfilled her engagements.
May I say a few words as to how this figure of seventy cruisers was arrived at. It was not based on the strength of any other navy, or of the navies of the world, but on our experiences in the Great War and the experiences which we learnt at manœuvres. There is no secret about the normal allocation in war-time of those cruisers. It was stated quite clearly by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Jellicoe, speaking for New Zealand and, of course, also for the rest of the Empire, at the Naval Conference at Geneva in 1927. He said that twenty-five cruisers would normally be operating with the Battle Fleet and forty-five would be allocated to the trade routes, of which at any given time twelve probably would be away refitting and refuelling.
I speak with great diffidence as a landsman, and particularly so in the presence of my noble and gallant friend on the cross-Benches [Earl Beatty], but I believe I am correct in saying that the greatest danger which the battleship has to meet is a determined attack by a flotilla of enemy destroyers. It is a far greater danger than an attack by submarines, and it is an infinitely greater danger than an attack by aeroplanes. A submarine can only operate in daylight, and the answer to the submarine is very largely the scouting aeroplane and other methods which we have found suitable and satisfactory. As regards the aeroplane, that, of course, is unable to operate in the dark, and in any case it only drops one bomb or one torpedo against the very large number which are discharged by destroyers. Those of your Lordships who have seen an attack delivered by destroyers will realise how great the danger is. The answer to that danger is, and must be, cruisers; and therefore I am very doubtful whether you will find any naval officer who will agree that any great reduction can be made in the number of the cruisers allocated to the Battle Fleet.
Similarly in regard to trade protection. A commerce-raider may be a converted merchantman. There is no difficulty whatever in knocking out a converted merchantman. Any cruiser carrying a 6-inch gun is more than a match for any merchantman, however well it may be fought, and that for many reasons. The cruiser has ammunition hoists and armour, and—more important than that—it has suitable range finders, and, still more, instruments for gunnery control. The difficulty, of course, is to be able to find the commerce-raider at all. It took twenty-three ships to catch the Emden, and your Lordships will realise how difficult the task of a cruiser guarding the trade routes is when I say that the thirty-three cruisers which were all that could be allocated out of the seventy then built, gives them an average of 2,500 miles of trade routes to guard; in other words, there would only be three cruisers between here and the Cape. Your Lordships will realise that if there is to be a reduction of twenty cruisers from the seventy, that will either mean reducing the thirty-three cruisers on the trade routes to thirteen only, or practically taking away all cruisers allo-

1473
cated to the Battle Fleet. I think your Lordships will agree that the country should be told what is the policy of the Government in this matter, and that we should be able to understand what it means. To me it seems obvious that there has been some change of policy, and if that is the case then I hope the Government will agree to produce a White Paper, so that the country may be able to understand clearly what is this change of policy, and what are the implications which it involves. I beg to move.
EARL BEATTY: My Lords, the question which has been raised by the noble Earl is in no sense a political question or a Party question, but it is an Imperial question, and therefore I feel that, having spent something more than seven and a half years as the principal naval adviser of four successive Governments, I am justified in rising and addressing your Lordships' House in support of the noble Earl. The Question on the Paper is one of what is the responsibility of the Admiralty. The responsibility of the Admiralty is to provide the naval strength adequate to carry out the policy of the Government. But, above that, it lies with the Admiralty to provide a sufficient strength to protect the sea communications and the trade routes, and to protect the Dominions and the Colonies from oversea attack. That is a responsibility which has been laid upon the Admiralty by successive Governments for very many years. It is a responsibility not only to His Majesty's Government but to the Empire, and it is for that reason that we require to know, and what we are concerned with is, that nothing has been done, that nothing is being done, and that nothing will be done at the forthcoming Conference which will in any way weaken the hands of the Admiralty in carrying this very heavy burden.
The Conference, we understand, will concern itself chiefly with the cruiser question. As was pointed out by the noble Earl, that is, a question which is very vital, because it is with cruisers that the defence of our trade and sea communications is primarily concerned. If we consider the enormous length of our communications and the immense volume of trade which is spread over it we will recognise that it is impossible to meet our requirements in that direction
1474
without an adequate provision of cruisers. The length of those lines of communication, where most of the British ships are found, is no less than 80,000 miles, and on a typical day in the year 9,500,000 tons of British ships, exceeding 3,000 tons of individual tonnage, will be found on those lines. Nine and a half million tons over 80,000 miles!
I will not trouble your Lordships with analyses of those statements or by quoting a large number of figures; but the main figures will impress your Lordships with the tremendous responsibility resting on the Admiralty to find adequate protection over such a vast area. As has been pointed out by the noble Earl, the number of cruisers hitherto required for the protection of our trade and for other purposes has been seventy. This requirement of seventy cruisers has actually been in being for the past ten years.; that is to say, practically since the signing of the Peace. The noble. Earl has informed us that this figure was confirmed no later than last May. Again, it is as well to analyse what the duties of those cruisers are. As was pointed out by the noble Earl, they have two duties to perform. First, they have to form a tactical part of the Battle Fleet. Secondly, they are required for the protection of the trade routes and sea communications. As regards the first, the number required is based upon the size of the Battle Fleet. The Battle Fleet is the covering force for all naval endeavour in the defence of the Empire. The Battle Fleet is the massing of battleships, the number of which was settled by the Washington Agreement. As stated by the noble Earl, the smallest number of cruisers required to work with the battleships, the number of which was assessed at Washington and cannot be altered, is twenty-five. You cannot get away from that figure in any circumstances whatsoever. That twenty-five must remain so long as the Battle Fleet consists of the number of battleships which was assessed at the Washington Conference. This, as the noble Earl has pointed out, leaves but forty-five. Taking away twelve refitting and refuelling, as pointed out also by the noble Earl, you are left with thirty-three to protect 80,000 miles of sea communications and trade routes.

1475
I turn to the statement which has been quoted, in which it is said that we are approaching the Conference on a basis of 50 cruisers composed of fifteen 8-inch ships and thirty-five 6-inch ships, the latter being approximately of 6,500 tons. If you analyse that statement it will be found that not only is this an enormous decrease on our proposed cruiser strength, but we are to go to a Conference on a total cruiser tonnage of 339,000, which includes fifteen 8-inch ships with a total displacement of 146,800 tons. That means that the remaining thirty-five ships cannot be of the new 6,500 ton type. That is a very important point because it means that when the time comes to replace the large number of small cruisers (that is, the small wartime cruisers) the tonnage figure of 339,000 tons will be insufficient to maintain even fifty cruisers. We are, therefore, approaching this Conference with figures which represent a dangerous minimum. We have to-day fifty-nine cruisers built and building, and this does not include the two cruisers of the 1928 programme which have been suspended, or the ships of the 1929 programme which the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons was also suspended. Of this number, fifty-nine, thirty-five will fall out from age during the next ten years. To maintain the number at fifty we must lay down, therefore, during the next few years 26 cruisers. A steady building programme is essential for this purpose. Yet the 1928 programme is suspended and, so far as is known, nothing has been done as regards the 1929 programme.
This cruiser situation is indeed serious. We have dropped our numbers from seventy to fifty. We are entering the Conference with an extremely low limit of cruiser tonnage. At the same time, there is at present no indication that a proper provision is being made even for the reduced figures and tonnage which have been put down. The noble Earl referred to what happened in the War. It is not so long ago that we can afford to lose sight of its lessons, and if we look them up we shall see that in the period from August 4,1914, until November 9,1914, the "Emden," which was being pursued by eighteen ships, captured twenty-nine ships with a total tonnage of 119,690; and that the "Karlsruhe" captured between August 4,1914, and November 4,1914, nineteen ships with a
1476
total tonnage of 83,701. There is an example of what two small cruisers can do in the face of the very large preponderating force of cruisers that we had out looking for them. In the case of the "Emden," no less than twenty-three ships were looking for her and so far as the "Karlsruhe" is concerned, forty-one ships were definitely warned and went out of their way to look for her. Is it surprising that there should be apprehension among those who have given thought and consideration to this vital question, that there should be dismay amongst those who cannot understand how parity in cruisers can be arrived at unless it is to be a parity having regard to the commitments and obligations of our nation? I think it can be agreed that there is no nation whose naval commitments and obligations are so great and complicated as those of the British Empire. It is inconceivable that there should be anybody who would be opposed to arriving at agreement with the United States, or any other nation, but surely it is equally inconceivable to think that anybody would lose sight of the fact that this Empire of ours is one which is bound by the sea, whose communications between the parts of the Empire are the sea, and it is on the protection of the sea that they depend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, we are accustomed to a certain elasticity in our debates on any given topic in this House, and it has always seemed to mo to be an excellent custom that that elasticity should prevail, but I must confess that I have seldom listened to two speeches in this House which have strayed further from the two points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in his Motion. The noble Earl began his remarks by expressing his fervent hope that a reduction of armaments would be effective, and of the general desirability of reaching understandings all round with other Naval Powers. His mind, however, appeared to be clouded at the same time with a certain amount of doubt, misgiving, and suspicion. Nearly every word that fell from him after the expression of that hope was such as to make one think that we, as a nation, should do everything in our power at the approaching Conference to make a reduction of armaments as difficult as possible.

1477
He quoted me as having talked about the relationship that should exist between policy and strategy. I do not vary that statement one iota; but I submit that what he did give us himself was a sort of lecture on naval strategy, and what he was asking from the Government was not an exposition of their policy in regard to the defence of the Empire but an exposition of their naval strategy. He even went so far as to quote, almost textually, the opinions expressed at a meeting of the Board of Admiralty in support of a certain figure of seventy cruisers which, at the time that Board met, was considered, according to the opinion quoted by the noble Earl, as the absolute minimum number of cruisers requisite for the defence of the British Empire; and he appears to assume that no matter what happens, what our relations may be with foreign countries, what arrangements we may enter into, that seventy is graven in tablets of stone, and is to stand like the laws of the Medes and Persians for ever and for ever. I may remind the noble Earl that the opinions of naval experts have often been abated, that some of the most eminent naval experts have recognised that there is a gap between theory and practice, that they have recognised that though from a naval point of view it might be absolutely ideal to have 120 cruisers, still, like sensible men, they also recognise that their coat must be cut according to their cloth, and that, above all, our relations with foreign countries may justify a diminution of the figure.
As regards the Questions that were put to me by the noble Earl, I can assure him of this, that the policy of His Majesty's Government, so far as the security of the Empire is concerned, has not been altered in one single point. The policy of His Majesty's Government is, in other words, to provide for the absolute security of the British Empire in all its aspects. If, as he seems to assume, there is any suspicion in the minds of some people that His Majesty's present Government have acted without consulting the Board of Admiralty, he is entirely mistaken. Throughout the life of the present Government the Board of Admiralty has been consulted as much as it ever could have been consulted before. There has been no omission of what is the obvious duty of a Government in that respect.
1478
As everyone knows, the object of the approaching Conference is a reduction of armaments. The delegates to this Conference from Great Britain are not, as they sometimes have been, naval experts. They are to be accompanied, however, by naval advisers. This change in the character of our delegation is, if I may express my own opinion with the utmost diffidence, an admirable change, a change for the better. It has always seemed to me that to put a technical expert in the position of a delegate to such a Conference is to put him in a false position. These questions can better be approached from the angle of statesmanship, because, in point of fact, what we are putting first is policy, and it is quite obvious that this Conference will be entirely abortive and ineffective unless we can reach some understanding with the Naval Powers of the World which will achieve the object of all such Conferences, a reduction of armaments.
As regards the responsibilities of the Admiralty, to which the noble Earl himself, and the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty, have referred, I can only say that if that Conference takes the course which every believer in world peace and every progressive person must fervently hope it will, His Majesty's Government feel absolutely confident that the Admiralty will be abe to continue adequately to discharge their responsibilities to the Government of the country for naval defence. That, I hope, meets the first part of the noble Earl's Question. I really cannot follow him into the details of naval strategy.
The second part of his Question asks for information and details about facts and figures which are the subject of negotiation at the coming Conference. Quite obviously, it is impossible for me to give him the information that he seeks. I can only say that any observations coming from the noble Earl on this subject, both on personal grounds and in view of the fact that he occupied a very distinguished position at the Admiralty in the last Administration, will be noted very carefully by His Majesty's Government, but it is impossible for me in present circumstances even to deal with the facts and figures that he has mentioned and about which he requires further information. I believe that in that figure of fifty, two Australian cruisers are included,

1479
but that is about the only further information I can give to the noble Earl. I hope that in these circumstances he will not press for Papers. I have no Papers to give him except absolutely secret papers which are the subject of negotiation, or rather will be at the approaching Conference. It is, therefore, with the hope that the noble Earl will not press his Motion for Papers that I repeat my assurance that his remarks will be carefully noted by the Government.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, you will have observed that my Question was in two parts. The noble Lord did not deal with the first part in any sort or kind of way except to say that there was no change of policy in regard to defence between the last Government and this Government. He then went on to say that the Conference about to be held was to be on questions of change of policy. How he reconciles those two statements I am unable to understand, and I doubt whether the House will understand either. As regards the second part, there I ask where the reduction of cruisers was to take place, whether in those allocated to the Battle Fleet or to the trade routes. There was no secret about that when the matter was discussed quite openly in 1927, and why a Government which professes to disagree with secret diplomacy should endeavour to hide every atom of information not only from your Lordships but also from the country as a whole, I fail to understand.
I think, perhaps, I do understand the reason, which is that they are not prepared to say either that the cruisers allocated to the Battle Fleet are insufficient or that those allocated to the trade routes are insufficient. It is obvious that if you make a reduction of twenty from one or the other, or both, the numbers are going to be insufficient and everybody will realise it. I do not want to press for Papers because, as the noble Lord says, apparently these are of a secret nature. Therefore I do not propose to proceed with my Motion further, but I do trust that before the Government go into the Conference they will take their own countrymen into their confidence because only so will they arrive at an agreement which will stand and, above all, arrive at a situation in
1480
which confidence and trust replaces suspicion and possibly a feeling of un-settlement which is the very worst foundation on which the peace of the world can rest.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SINGAPORE BASE.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to ask His Majesty's Government how far and in what respects the scheme for the Singapore base has been delayed or postponed; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise for again addressing the House. I had hoped that my last Motion would be entirely of a non-Party character and that is why I separated it from the question of Singapore which unfortunately, as I think, has to some extent taken a Party character. There have been several debates in your Lordships' House in recent years on the new base and I do not propose to traverse ground which has been covered on those former occasions. I may perhaps be allowed to remind the House, however, that the Imperial Conferences of 1923 and 1926 took note in identical terms of "the deep interest of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and India in the construction of a naval base at Singapore, as essential for ensuring the mobility necessary to provide for the security of the territories and trade of the Empire in Eastern waters."
Mr. Bruce stated in 1926—he was then, of course, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth—
" I can only say that Australia believes that the Singapore base is absolutely essential."
Those views are not surprising when we remember that the coasts of India are practically undefended and that it is common knowledge that we should be unable to send our Battle Fleet to the defence of Australia or New Zealand unless and until a base has been constructed at Singapore. At the present moment, with the exception of the floating dock which has recently been installed in the Old Strait, not a single dock east of Malta exists that is capable of taking a modern bulged capital ship. The noble Lord last week made an analogy in this

1481
House between the Airship R 101 and an ordinary ship, and he said that the airship shed was to the airship as a dry dock is to a ship and the mast to an ordinary dock. By an ordinary dock I suppose he meant a basin. He stated that the analogy was not very close but that it was fairly close. There I disagree with him entirely, but the analogy is one that he drew and it is for him to explain it away now if he so desires. But I should like to ask him whether he would think of sending an airship out to Australia or even to India in the event of war if he had no shed in which to do repairs should they become necessary?
In spite of these facts, which we all know, His Majesty's Government announced in another place on November 13 that they had decided that work already contracted for should be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that could be suspended should be suspended, and that no new work should be embarked upon pending the result of the Five-Power Naval Conference. Why should you wait for the Naval Conference before proceeding with work that does not concern in the least the Five Powers attending that Conference? Why that should be so I am unable to understand, unless it is that the Government are actually bartering the security of the Dominions in the hope that they may be able to obtain a reduction of a few cruisers. The Government appear to think that we alone are constructing or improving a naval base. Surely noble Lords opposite know that a very large amount of construction and improvement work has been carried out in recent years in the naval bases in Japan and in Pearl Harbour in the Hawaiian Islands belonging to the United States. Of course we have made no remarks on that work. It is solely a matter concerning those two Powers. Why they or any other Power should think that they have a right to make any remarks as regards what we do at Singapore, equally outside the area which came into the Washington Conference, I am unable to understand. In point of fact neither of these Powers have done so and why the Government should think they should entirely passes my comprehension.
So much nonsense has been written and spoken about Singapore that perhaps I
1482
may be allowed to say exactly what Singapore was intended to be. It is not a second Portsmouth with a large number of docks, with barracks, with very big workshops employing thousands of men. It was designed as an extremely small base. It was designed to have one floating dock capable of taking a capital ship with its attendant floating crane. The floating dock and the floating crane are already in the Old Strait. It was further designed to have one and only one graving dock, a wharf wall alongside which ships could lie, and a small basin capable of accommodating steamships taking out naval stores to the base. In addition there were to be only sufficient workshops for use with the docks, a very small supply base and a magazine capable of taking the ammunition from ships which were in either the floating dock or the graving dock. In addition, of course, houses are necessary for the accommodation of those working at the base, together with the necessary extension of the railway, roads, and water supply.
I think your Lordships will realise from this how very small this scheme for the naval base really is. In addition to the naval side, to which alone I have so far referred, both the Army and the Air Force come into the scheme to a minor extent: the Army to provide for shore defences and the Air Force to provide an aerodrome and its ancillary buildings. The total cost for all three services, exclusive of the floating dock, which, of course, can at any time be towed elsewhere, was estimated at a little over £11,500,000. This figure has been stated over and over again in another place and elsewhere. Of this £11,500,000, which was the total expenditure, Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States and New Zealand had contributed, or were in process of contributing, £3,250,000. The £8,000,000 odd which this country had to find was to have been spread over a period of nine years, and in no year would the expenditure which this country had to find for all three Services have exceeded, roughly, £1,300,000.
And yet the Government proposes to postpone some works and to stop others. It says to India and to the Dominions: "It is quite true that, by the alteration of a single clause in one Bill, we have incurred an annual expenditure of

1483
£4,000,000, but we are not prepared to spend £8,000,000, spread over a period of nine years, in order to obtain security for you and for your trade. It is quite true that you gave unstintingly of money and of men to render us assistance in the Great War, but we are not prepared to give even the small expenditure which would enable us to send a Battle Fleet to your assistance should the need unfortunately at any time arise."
I think the House would like to know what work has been slowed down and what has been suspended. The contract for the construction of the dry dock, the wharf walls and the basin was signed by me last September on behalf of the Government. That contract came to more than half the expenditure on the naval side of the base. The work was to be completed in seven years, and this period was selected as being that which was most economical for working and best not only for the Government but for the firm that was doing the work. Indeed, one firm that tendered stated that, if they got the contract—they did not get it—they would prefer to do the work in quicker time, as being more economical. I should like to ask whether this contract has been interfered with and, if so, whether the Government have received any assurance from the contractors that the work will not in consequence cost more than it would have cost under the contract that was approved? The workshops that were to be completed by Departmental labour were not due to be begun for some years, and therefore there can be no question of postponement in their case, but other works are being done by Departmental labour, such as the building of houses for those employed at the base. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite whether the work on these houses is still being proceeded with or if the staff has been reduced or is going to be accommodated in temporary buildings instead of in the proper houses that were being erected for their accommodation?
As regards the connection with the railway, the roads and the water supply, I imagine this work must be very nearly completed, but I should like to have the assurance of the noble Lord on that point. The magazine, as I have stated, was designed to take ammunition from ships that were put into the graving dock or
1484
the floating dock. Your Lordships will, of course, realise that ammunition ought to be taken out of a ship when she is opened up or put into a dock, whether floating or otherwise, and it is really essential, therefore, that a magazine should be constructed in order that this ammunition may be safely housed underground while the ship is being dealt with, even now, at the floating dock. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the magazine is being proceeded with and whether the work in regard to the armaments supply depot is going ahead. Work was also being done at the aerodrome and on the jetty, barracks and buildings connected with it. Perhaps the noble Lord can give us some further information on that point also.
What I should particularly like to ask him is whether work on the military defences has been stopped or not? Speaking on the Singapore question on July 1, 1925, the noble Lord said:—
"Presumably from the moment work is started at the Old Strait some measures will have to be taken for defending that locality."
The work is proceeding, or at least has begun, at the Old Strait, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this is still his view and whether the measures necessary for the defence of the locality are still proceeding. I do not think that there are any other points that I wish to ask the noble Lord about, but I hope that we shall obtain definite information on the various points that I have raised, in order that the people of this country and of the Dominions may know what the policy of the Government in regard to Singapore actually is.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl detailed information in regard to every one of the buildings and appliances in Singapore that he has mentioned. There was no indication in his Question that he required such detailed information as that. If I had known, I should certainly have obtained it for him, but I trust that he will not suspect me of discourtesy in not giving him all the information that he asks for. I think he will agree that there was a great deal of detail in the form in which the Question was put in his speech. I will do my best. The Question that stands on the Paper is:—

1485
"How far and in what respects the scheme for the Singapore base has been delayed or postponed."
An answer was given in a speech from which the noble Earl himself quoted, or rather on the day on which that speech was made, which I cannot improve upon. With the permission of the House I will read it. The answer was given in another place, and was to this effect:—
"In all the circumstances, the Government has decided that the work already contracted for at Singapore shall be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that can be suspended shall be suspended, and that no new work shall be embarked on pending the results of the Five-Power Conference."
That answer really covers a great deal concerning which the noble Earl is seeking information.
I would lay special emphasis on the fact that this decision is reached pending the results of the Five-Power Conference. I must again insist that the Conference is designed, if it is humanly possible and consistent with the security of the British Empire, to achieve a reduction in armaments. I am not going now into the category of armaments—that is not my function at the moment—but I am sure that the noble Earl and your Lordships will agree that, if we can be successful, it is obvious that in respect of an enormously expensive dock like Singapore dock—a scheme like that may he modified in essential respects, with consequent saving of money to the taxpayer, and, it may be, a saving of provocation to other nations throughout the world. It is a purely tentative decision. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to go into this Conference and use the Singapore dock scheme as a bargaining counter. We are going into this Conference with absolutely clean hands and a definite policy—a policy which has been repeated and reiterated countless times. If we achieve the results which we hope for, then, without using Singapore in any sense at the Conference, we shall quite obviously be able to apply some of the results of the success of that Conference to the modification of the Singapore scheme.
I think perhaps I may explain some of the details of that answer which I read out. The question of the main contract, that is, graving dock, reclamation, wharf walls, etc., is now under consideration. I think the noble Earl said that he
1486
wanted to know what was the last arrangement between the Government or the Admiralty and the contractor. I am afraid I cannot tell him. That is not a detail for which I was prepared. I am not at all sure that it would be possible for anybody to get that information, unless it was specifically asked for. I submit that it is not covered by the noble Earl's Question.
EARL STANHOPE: I must remind the noble and gallant Lord that I gave him private notice with regard to that contract.
LORD THOMSON: I acknowledge with gratitude the courtesy of the noble Earl, but I must confess that I never noticed that he asked for the actual arrangements reached between the Admiralty and the contractor since this tentative suspension. Unless I am very much mistaken that was not mentioned in the noble Earl's letter. I have a very clear recollection of what he said in the letter, and I am grateful for his courtesy in sending it to me, but he did not mention this particular point. I certainly looked up the question of the main contract, and that is why I have had it written out by those best qualified to write it out for me. The question of the main contract, the graving dock, reclamation, wharf walls, etc., is now under consideration. It is not His Majesty's Government's intention to prejudice the date of completion of the base if the decision to proceed with it should eventually be taken. That in a sense answers the noble Earl's Question about the contractor. It is not the intention of the Government to prejudice the date of completion by anything they are doing at present. The decision does not affect maintenance and other services, which must continue.
The noble Earl has had the advantage of spending four years at the Admiralty, and is more conversant with these details than I am. I do not know whether that answer meets him. If I had only been prepared for these questions a little more thoroughly, I would certainly have done my best to get the information asked for, but I hope I have satisfied the noble Earl. The items to be deferred include some which the last Government decided to put in hand in 1930, the most important of these being the armament depot, which I think will account for £150,000 in next year's Estimates. Such items as water

1487
supply, workshops, store-houses, offices, residence, etc., are being carried out independently of the main contract, and are intended to be completed at various dates as required, during the period of the completion of the base as a whole. I think that covers many of the buildings which the noble Earl referred to. In certain cases where works are well advanced they will not be interfered with. Of the remainder, it is proposed to defer certain items of work. I have a summary of this answer which I think covers most of the ground. It is as follows:—The naval base is being slowed down by the suspension of such items outside the main contract as can be suspended and non-commencement of new items. The noble Earl with his knowledge of this base will perhaps be able to fill in the gaps. I regret that I cannot give him at this moment many of the details he asked for.
EARL STANHOPE: Can the noble and gallant Lord give us any information as regards the Air Force?
LORD THOMSON: As regards the military side of the base the situation is for all practical purposes as the late Government left it, and the whole question is under review. A sum of about £2,000,000 is, I think, to be expended on the War Office side, and a good deal of that was on account of coast defence. That question is under review at the present moment. Generally speaking, the situation is as it was left by the last Government. As to the air base, it is in no way affected by this decision. The air base is proceeding. I observe the noble Earl laughs, but he presumably admits the value of the air base.
EARL STANHOPE: I admit the value of all three.
LORD THOMSON: There is one other statement which I would like to make with the permission of the House, although I do not know that it was directly referred to by the noble Earl. It concerns the Dominions. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not regard His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions as in any way committed by the provisional conclusions which have been reached pending the results of the Five-Power Conference which is to take place in London next month. Any proposal affecting this scheme as a whole, or the
1488
date of its conclusion, would be made the subject of full consultation with them and the fullest consultation would also take place with the Governments of Malaya and Hong Kong. I do not think that there are any other points that I have left uncovered, although I candidly confess that I have not covered them in the detail which the noble Earl appears to have expected. I hope he will accept my regrets. As regards the laying of Papers, here again I must appeal to the noble Earl. I do not know what Papers he expects me to lay. He has given full explanation of a great deal about the base to the House already, and there is nothing that I can lay in the way of Papers which would give much more information. Such Papers as there are I am afraid I cannot lay at present. I therefore trust that he will not press his Motion.
EARL STANHOPE: I am much obliged to the noble and gallant Lord opposite for the information which he has given. I would only have liked it to have been somewhat fuller, but of course I appreciate the fact that he has not been in as close touch with these matters as it was my lot to be for a very considerable period. I beg to thank him for the answer he has given and to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report by the Select Committee.
The Committee reported:—
1. MESSENGERS OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS' DEPARTMENT.
The Committee authorised a rise (as from the 1st July, 1929) of £10 a year in the basic salary of head messengers in the Judicial and Committee Offices.
2. SECURITY FUND.
The Committee considered the relation of the House of Lords' Security Fund to the House of Lords' Fee Fund, and authorised the transfer from the Fee Fund to the Security Fund of sums which were required to place the Security Fund on a proper basis.
3. LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN'S DEPARTMENT.
The Committee considered an application for a rise of salary from the Resident

1489
Superintendent, and authorised an increase on his salary of £50 from the 1st April, 1930, and an annual rise of £10 to a maximum of £400.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL Of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House again to be put in Committee read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, and I should like to call your Lordships attention to the fact that there is a very large number of Amendments still to be got through. I understand that we are going to sit late to-night, and I hope that we shall also sit late to-morrow, but it does not seem certain that that will finish the Bill. I cannot complain in the least of the progress that has been made. There has been no obstruction of any sort, but there has been a great deal of discussion on the various clauses, and I hope your Lordships will do what is possible to finish to-morrow night; but, if not, we should certainly have to sit on Friday, and I am not even sure we should finish it then unless we took a long sitting.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Russell.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, may I assure the noble Earl that in anything that the Government do to expedite matters we shall be only too ready to help them, but I hope we may finish to-morrow night. If not, I am certain it would have been better to have met last Friday than to meet this Friday.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORK in the Chair.]
Clause 34:
Requirements in respect of policies.
34.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer within the meaning of this Part of this Act; and

(b) 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 or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road:

Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover—

(i) liability in respect of the death in the course of his employment of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person in the course of his employment; or

(ii) except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "authorised insurer" means an assurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by this Act, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall, subject to any conditions contained in the policy, be liable to indemnify the persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability against which they are insured by the policy.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to insert, before the proviso to paragraph (b) of subsection (1), "and insures to any hospital treating any such bodily injury payment of the cost of such treatment up to a maximum payment of twenty-five pounds." The noble Lord said: During the year 1927 the hospitals of the provinces treated 26,000 in-patients and 39,000 outpatients in their wards as the result of

1491
motor accidents. The cost to those hospitals was approximately £230,000. The actual money recovered from insurance offices and from the patients was £26,000, so that to the extent of eight-ninths of the cases the hospitals bore the expense. If these cases were divided over all the hospitals in the Kingdom evenly probably it would not be so unfortunate for the few hospitals which now receive these cases in excess—the hospitals which are near to the great trunk roads. All good motorists will pick up an injured person and take him to the nearest hospital, but the cure is, I am afraid, usually at the expense of that hospital, and the chairmen of hospitals and hospital charities are continually saying that these casualties from the roads are using the beds that have been provided in local hospitals for local needs.
The maximum payment that I propose of £25 is based on £4 a week for six weeks. That £4 is supposed to cover the out-of-pocket expenses of a hospital treating such a case, and the figures I have quoted will show that usually the average expense would not be greater than about £4 in all. With regard to the cost of premium for any one insuring against this risk an insurance company recently agreed to issue a policy at the cost of 5s. and that would include all the expense of an individual policy. But if such a risk were added to the present risk in anyone's policy the insurance people say that the cost would be only about 1s. or 2s. It seems only reasonable that hospitals should have this first charge on the insurance, because if the hospitals were not handy to try and remedy the results of accidents motorists would be in a very difficult position. This question of the hospitals which have suffered in this way has been dealt with very freely in the Press and recently in an article by Sir Charles Harris in The Times, so I need not make a long statement about the matter. Also there are many noble Lords in this House to state the case, and they probably will take the opportunity of doing so to-day.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Luke.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Of course, this Amendment will not deal with all the accident cases brought to hospitals through motor accidents. It would only deal with those where the man is insured against third-party risk, and where the accident is due to his negligence. It seems really unfair that if a man is injured in an accident and is taken to a nursing home and treated by a doctor the insurer should pay the expenses as a liability in consequence of his negligence, but that if the same patient is taken to a hospital the insurer is not liable because the hospital has no legal claim to recover the costs incurred by it. In fact, the insurance company might refuse to pay it as it was not a legal liability, and they would be justified from the point of view of their shareholders.
I want to emphasise the fact that, although the treatment of these cases has increased enormously, and although this is a very serious burden on the hospitals, we make no complaint of that. They are there to help these people who are injured, and we are only too glad that the first question asked when anyone sees an accident is, "Where is the nearest hospital?" But we do think it unfair that, because the person is treated in a hospital, the hospital should not get any part of the expense which is incurred. You may ask: "Why don't you get it from the patient? "It is hardly the time to bargain with a patient when he is brought to your doors smashed to pieces as the result of a motor accident. I have had the misfortune to be run over and nearly killed—I think I was dead for some time—by a motor trolley. I was taken to a hospital. They did not ask me how much I would pay to be treated there and, of course, nothing was paid for my treatment at that hospital by the villain who ran over me. I did not feel that I could claim anything very serious from him because the greatest damage he did was to make me deaf. That prevents me having the great pleasure of hearing your Lordships' speeches and the retort, if I had claimed for that as damages, was rather too obvious. My noble friend Lord Luke has put the cost down at £25; that is the maximum cost which a hospital might recover, though it might have to spend a considerable amount more upon treating a patient. I am sure that this is

1493
a fair Amendment. I know that the country expects us to deal fairly by these hospitals upon whom this great burden of expense has come and who are very ready and, as I said before, make no complaint at having to meet it.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Having been connected for over thirty years with three central funds, the Saturday Fund, the Sunday Fund and King Edward's Hospital Fund, I desire to support this Amendment. I do not think that any more figures are needed to show the expense to which hospitals are put by motor traffic; but I should like to refer to the report made last year by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission in which they say:—
"This charge "—
referring to the charge put upon the hospitals—
"ought not to fall upon funds derived largely from the generosity of the charitable, whose gifts are intended for the relief of persons who have not the means to provide institutional treatment at their own cost."
The report says further:—
"We recognise that the proposal would involve legislation, possibly of a controversial character, but we can see no other way of imposing the charge on those by whom in equity it should be borne."
This was the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, and it is their desire and the desire of many of us here to-night to put the hospitals in a position to claim payment out of the insurance. I would venture to appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, which he has conducted, if I may say so, so ably, to give this measure of justice to the hospitals. I believe he will find it quite easy and well within his power.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move to amend the proposed Amendment as follows: After" hospital "insert" or surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid."The noble Viscount said: I thoroughly agree with the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Luke, but I should like to move an Amendment to it, not as printed on the Paper but in the following form: After "injury "insert" or to any surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid." One often reads letters of complaint in the Press from doctors who live near the scenes of frequent accidents, that they are
1494
scandalously treated by persons who not only do not pay them but who go away with articles which have been lent to them and do not return them. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After ("injury") insert ("or to any surgeon or medical practitioner rendering first aid.").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I should like to support the Amendment though not the Amendment to the Amendment. It is clear that this Amendment only deals with an admitted liability on the part of the motorist who does injury. If the person who is injured has no claim against the motorist, no liability will be incurred and no risk run by the insurance company which has insured the motorist. It is only in the case where the injured person has a legal claim against the motorist that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Luke comes into operation. There is, I think, a distinction between a hospital and a medical practitioner. In the event of an accident for which a motorist is responsible, the person injured would have a claim against that motorist for personal injury and also, of necessity, for the cost of the treatment of that personal injury. If this proposal is not adopted, the Common Law remedy still remains for the injured person to sue the motorist for damages and the costs of the medical treatment. There are, however, a certain number of motorists who are not worth powder and shot and the proposal here, like the proposal of the Government, is to provide some remedy for persons injured by motorists who are not worth powder and shot.
At present a person is obliged to insure against claims for personal injury. The Bill does not deal with claims for injury to property, and therefore I will not touch upon that point; but it does provide that motorists shall insure against injury to the person in life and limb. If the injured person was taken to a medical practitioner, as is suggested in the Amendment to the Amendment, the claim of that medical practitioner would be part of the damages to be paid by the motorist and would be a proper claim against the insurance company. It is not the same

1495
in the case of hospitals, I understand. Hospitals are voluntary associations and as such cannot institute an action or make a legal claim against the injured person or against the person who causes the injury. They must depend upon the voluntary payments of the person brought to them for treatment or the person who caused the injury. I see that a very much better authority on the law than I am shakes his head and I withdraw that point; but I would like to make another.
A great number of these hospitals are local hospitals maintained by the localities for their own neighbourhoods. This is not the case of a great London hospital which is supported by a large number of contributors throughout the country. It is not a case of the London Hospital, University College Hospital, St. Thomas's Hospital or St. Bartholomew's. It is the case of the small hospitals maintained out of the comparative lack of affluence of the localities which maintain them. It is a very serious burden to cottage hospitals situate upon main roads where these accidents very largely happen, to have constantly a substantial number of beds occupied by patients who, in fact, whether in law or not, do not pay and on whose account the persons who inflict the injury upon them do not pay. It is a matter which can be covered by a very small amendment. I urge that it would be a proper thing to give this remedy not to the great hospitals in the first instance, not to those who are affluent, but to the somewhat struggling hospitals with which many of us are closely associated and which we find some difficulty in maintaining in view of the constantly increasing cost of upkeep. If in future we are to deal voluntarily with injuries done by motorists, I think some of the small hospitals may find even greater difficulty in carrying on than they have at present. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD ATKIN: As the noble Lord kindly made a reference to me I should like to say a word or two about this Amendment. While in sympathy with the object I see a difficulty in accepting the words exactly as they are proposed. The policies, as proposed, have to insure motorists against any liability incurred by them in respect of the injury, and then
1496
they would go on and insure "to any hospital treating such bodily injury payment of the cost of such treatment…" As I understand it the object of this insurance clause has been not to interfere with the ordinary principles of insurance. The policy is to be left as it is between the insurance company and the insured. I do not know of any policy by which the insurance company promise, not to indemnify the motorists against the liability to him, but to pay some third person direct something for which the motorist is not liable. It interferes with the principle of insurance, which is the principle of indemnity. Now if the hospital has a right to make a charge against the injured person for the services which it renders to that injured person there is no difficulty. In such a case the hospital can make the charge against the injured person, and the injured person would necessarily recover that sum from the motorist and, through the motorist, from the insurance company, as part of his damages. The hospital will, in other words, pay the costs of the medical attention.
It is plain to my mind that in a great many cases hospitals are in a position to make a charge against the patients who come under their control. One knows that hospitals have private wards and charge for them. A great many cottage hospitals charge for every bed; in fact so much so that I remember very well, shortly after I went into the Court of Appeal, we had a case which turned upon the measure of damages where the injured person had been treated in the cottage hospital, and where the cottage hospital had adopted a somewhat remarkable procedure, because they had two scales of charges—a lower scale where the patient himself paid, and a higher scale when the charges were to be paid by a third party, or an insurance company—and there was a very substantial difference, which, I am sorry to say, was not allowed. So there is no difficulty. The noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, speaks with much more authority on this than I do, and it may be found there are insuperable difficulties in a hospital making a charge against a person who comes for attention and who is treated by them. At present I do not know what they are in law, and I see no reason why a hospital should not hold itself out to people as saying: "We will make a charge for any

1497
party who comes to us who is injured in a motor accident, and remit that charge if, in fact, it is not covered by insurance. "There is no reason why that should not be done. If so the object of this is dealt with.
If there are insuperable difficulties, the real remedy is by making some such provision as that any person who has been injured by the negligence of a motorist shall be entitled, as part of his damages, to recover a reasonable sum, not exceeding £25, which he may have paid, whether legally liable or not, to a hospital for attention to his injuries. That would enable him to recover from the insurance company. I doubt very much whether that would mean any increase in the premium, because medical attention is always one of the elements in the damages which the insurance company lay themselves out to pay. I venture to think that this particular form of provision—that the policy should involve an obligation upon the insurance company direct to any hospital not named—would be contrary to the whole principle of insurance, would be contrary to the policy of the Act, and, as far as I know, would be very difficult to enforce, because it would be difficult to say there was a contract between the hospital and the insurance company which the hospital could enforce.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment. Since the advent of the motor voluntary hospitals have been placed in a totally new position. They have a large and continually increasing number of patients of an entirely new kind. In former days, apart from London and the big hospitals in central places, the local hospitals chiefly treated patients from their own locality. They were equipped for that, and their resources were sufficient, or at any rate those who managed them tried to make them sufficient, for the treatment of local patients. Now, especially on the main roads and on some of the new roads which are being made, which will probably be a source of great danger owing to the speed at which people will travel upon them, but especially on the main roads, the hospitals which are situated there have to treat an enormous number of patients coming perhaps from a great distance and having nothing to
1498
do with the locality whom they never had to treat before.
The figures which were given by the noble Lord were really remarkable. I think, if I remember right, the figures he gave were that in 1927 the cost to the hospitals of this new class of patient—those injured by motors—was something like £230,000 and the amount they received from patients only £26,000. I need hardly say that voluntary hospitals in all parts of the country have already, and had before the advent of the motor, considerable difficulty in raising funds in order to meet their liabilities and carry out those duties which they were only too anxious to perform. Since these new patients have come their difficulties have been immensely increased. My noble friend said that they did not complain in this sense, that they are always ready and willing to do their utmost in the way of benevolence to help the people injured; but, if I may mention the case of a hospital with which I am particularly acquainted—that is the York Hospital—I have seen some of the figures and have gone into some of the new liabilities which were thrown upon that hospital in consequence of taking patients who have been injured by motors. This has created an exceedingly serous position, and those who are managing that hospital have made exceptional efforts to cover this new expenditure, partially with success, partially I am afraid without success.
Therefore, from the point of view of the hospitals, I venture to think it is an unanswerable claim that if the injured persons do not pay them for the treatment they receive, which they generally do not, the hospitals should be reimbursed in some other way, and the way it is proposed by this insurance clause is what is described in the Report of Royal Commission in these terms:—
"We can see no other way of imposing the charge on those by whom in equity it ought to be borne."
In equity they think it ought to be borne by the persons who are treated. There is the view of the motorist. Can anyone say it is unfair on him that he should be called upon to pay a very small additional fee in the way of premium of 5s. a year, or possibly much less, in order to insure against this just claim—I do not say legal liability, but this just claim of the hospitals? Surely motorists who go 300

1499
or 500 miles in the day, often at an excessive speed, would be willing, and indeed anxious, if the Legislature told them to do so, to pay this extra sum as insurance to meet the claims of the hospitals. They would be anxious to pay. At any rate they have no ground for objection. May I say one word about the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin? The point he raised is quite a good technical point, but it is really only a technical point. All that would be necessary would be to change the form of Amendment and what we are talking about is the substance of the Amendment and not its form. I am sure he would only be too glad to suggest or acquiesce in a change in its form. Indeed, he did suggest a form that would carry out the intentions of the mover of the Amendment.
LORD EBBISHAM: May I say a word in support of the Amendment as I have some experience in connection with four small hospitals in Surrey? We found that in the last completed year an expenditure had been made for patients injured by motors but resident outside our locality of at least £2,000. A great injustice is being done to all hospitals throughout the country. Whatever happens to the Amendment—and I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept it—the fact that this question has been ventilated will be of the utmost value when the Bill reaches another place. With regard to the question of the right to recover stated charges for attendance where the patient is resident outside the area of the hospital, in that connection would the noble Earl consider, if he has to refuse the Amendment, the possibility of supporting the hospitals in making such stated charges? There is a parallel for doing this. In the Town Clauses Act, 1827, and the Public Health Act, 1875, local authorities are empowered to make a reasonable charge for fire brigade services rendered outside their rateable areas on the owner of the land or buildings on which the fire occurs. I do hope the noble Earl will be able to accept the original Amendment or, if not, to consider the possibility of treating these hospitals with some sympathy and consideration in the difficult position in which they are now placed through the great increase in motor traffic.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have been aware of the grievance of the hospitals in this matter. It is a grievance which has grown much more acute in the last two or three years. One of the principal grievances—and a most legitimate grievance—is in regard to the comparatively small local hospital, which is provided by the money of people in the locality with the intention that it shall be available for the treatment of people in the locality and which finds its beds filled by people not from the locality owing to motor accidents, and thus those for whose benefit the hospital was founded are often unable to get admission. It is obviously a grievance and I recognise they have a good deal of reason to complain. As regards this particular Amendment in this particular part of the Bill this is not the way to remedy that grievance. It would be inconsistent with the general scheme of insurance in Part II of the Bill and it would really not be by any means the best way to do it. As has been pointed cut it would not include all cases.
There seems to be in your Lordships' House a practically unanimous feeling that something of this sort should be done. I would suggest that the proper way to do it would be to draft a separate clause which would provide in one way or another, not for the insurance only of some persons who are injured, but for the insurance of all persons who are injured, at any rate of all motorists, so that none of them escape. It seems to me there are many ways in which that might be done if Parliament thought proper to do it. You might impose a levy of 5s. on every man who took out a licence. You are not under any obligation, unless you thought it the cheapest-way, to pass that 5s. over to an insurance company; you could pass it to a central fund to be administered for the benefit of the hospitals. It wants further consideration as to what the best method would be. Certainly this would not be the best method. It would be a very clumsy method and it would not fit in with this Bill. If Lord Luke, who moved the Amendment, and Lord Knutsford, who knows all there is to be known about hospitals, would confer with me and my advisers before the Report stage, I will see if a separate clause can be drafted to meet this case and I will

1501
have it very carefully considered to see if it does what we want.
There is, at the moment, a difficulty in that a hospital has no legal claim, and therefore no legal contract or liability arises. I do not know if it is possible for hospitals to obtain a legal claim by altering their rules, or whether in the clause you would have to give them a legal claim, or how it could be met. These are all points to be considered. There is only one word of warning that I would say and that is for those interested in hospitals to consider. If once a hospital which is a voluntary hospital begins receiving contributions from any source in a manner which is not voluntary, it seems to me to be altering its character in a way which might be embarrassing and might in the end, if the income from that source was considerable, be exposing it to some form of public management. That would be for those who desire this course to consider. For the reasons which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin gave, this Amendment would be quite out of keeping with this part of the Bill. It would have to be a separate clause. It would require a great many more provisions than this to make it a workable clause. I am willing to consider such a clause and to allow the Minister of Transport or, if he does not agree with it, those interested to bring up a clause on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: On behalf of the British Hospitals Association I would like to say that I hope he will approach this matter from the point of view of the Amendment and from no point of view like the imposition on motorists of 5s. a head to raise a fund. That would be very unfortunate indeed. What is needed is to enable the hospitals to do what the ordinary doctor or the ordinary nursing home can do. As noble Lords know I have had much experience of litigation of this kind. If a person is injured and taken in hand by a doctor or nursing home, he can recover those costs from the person who has injured him or from the insurance company. What is wanted is that exactly the same position should apply in the case of voluntary hospitals. We want no collection of 5s. from motorists or otherwise. We want to put hospitals in the position of the ordinary nursing home. I am sure that is the view of my noble friend Lord Knutsford.
1502
The noble Earl has promised to meet Lord Knutsford and his friends and I want him to meet them from the point of view of getting as near this clause as he possibly can.
EARL RUSSELL: I was proposing to consider this matter with a perfectly open mind and to consider any suggestions from those able to make them with the view of producing the best agreed clause possible if such a clause can be drawn.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I totally disagree with the noble Viscount on this matter. There are three separate heads of grievance. There is a grievance, and a very serious one in the country districts, that hospitals which are provided for the locality are in fact utilised by the motorists. They will not be dealt with in any way, I am afraid, from the manner in which you are approaching this matter.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Why?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Because the beds are actually filled. That is the real point you have to deal with. Country doctors will tell you pitiful stories of how the poor are utterly unable to get hospital treatment because the hospitals are absolutely filled up with motorists at a certain period of the year. I have heard many stories of that kind. That is one grievance. The second grievance is that even where there is liability to pay for the accident because there has been negligence the hospitals can get no payment if they have treated the victims of the accident. That case solely is dealt with by this Amendment. The third grievance is one which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, very properly referred to—namely, the case of injury to a person who is treated by the hospital, when nobody is liable for the expenses incurred by the hospital because technically or legally there was no negligence. But it is just as great an evil to the hospital and the locality that, owing to the unfortunate circumstances attending this business of motoring, they have in fact to incur enormous expense and to fill up all their beds without being able to obtain any alleviation whatever. It is that part of the case which I trust the noble Earl will persist in considering with an entirely open mind as well as the specific point raised by the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Will the noble Earl also consider the point raised by me in my Amendment to the proposed Amendment—namely, the protection of doctors who are left without payment?
EARL RUSSELL: I think they are protected, if they can sue. That is to say, an injured person can recover damages which include medical fees, but I am told that in some cases where a patient has been treated at a hospital, although he recovers damages that include medical fees, they are not always necessarily paid over to the hospital. But I am going to consider everything that any person interested in the matter represents to me.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not want to trouble your Lordships with a long speech, but I want to point out that in conjunction with my noble friend behind me, I sat upon the Voluntary Hospitals Commission which sat for some years and went into the matter and recommended that some form of insurance should be instituted for this purpose. We specially drew attention to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that this was a matter which was felt with special severity by hospitals situated near main roads. I happen to be President of one—the Surrey County Hospital—where we suffer very much because we are just on the Portsmouth Road. It sometimes happens that people actually knock up against the hospital. We have had a great deal of work in attending motorists in that hospital. I should like to support the Amendment from that point of view because it was supported by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission.
LORD LUKE: The noble Earl usually puts his refusals so very pleasantly that I was a little nervous when he was speaking lest we should get nothing, but I rather gather that a clause will be submitted at some time or other to the noble Viscount and myself and others interested and will be brought before your Lordships to carry out the suggestion more or less. In other words, we are to get something. If that is so, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but the approval voiced in many speeches in favour of the Amendment has been so spontaneous that it makes me think that I should not withdraw unless the noble Earl is prepared to do that.
EARL RUSSELL: I have endeavoured to make my position clear and I thought I had succeeded. I am not an expert in hospitals and I do not know the best way to do this thing, but I have said that I am perfectly willing to consult with those who do know and try to arrive at an agreed clause. Of course, if the Minister of Transport does not approve of it, it can be moved by some other noble Lord.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—
"or a person using or causing or permitting any other person to use a motor vehicle or motor vehicles who has deposited, or keeps deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court, for and on behalf of the Supreme Court, the sum of fifteen thousand pounds in respect of such use."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises the point which was discussed by the noble Earl in his speech last night, that is, the question of the arrangement to be made in the case of big concerns who can and do insure themselves. The noble Earl seemed to think that if you take, for instance, one of the big railway companies, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, which owns a lot of vans, or one of the great omnibus companies or great carrying companies, that they with all their vast resources should go to an insurance company and get a guarantee of their own solvency. It does seem to me that to ask a great railway company to pay a premium every year to an insurance company perhaps one-tenth its size and with resources one-tenth as great as those of the railway company is really quite unnecessary. I want the noble Earl to consider this, though I do not want to hold him to the exact wording of this Amendment. He said, I think, that no one could say whether any company was sufficiently solvent to carry out its obligations and that the Minister would have difficulty in allowing any particular company to run its own insurance instead of insuring with an insurance company. But really if you go to an insurance company the position is no better because then it will become a question of the solvency of the insurance company. A railway company might go to a quite small insurance

1505
company whose solvency was nothing like so good as that of the railway company itself. In the case of the P. & O. Steamship Company I believe it is well known that that company does not insure at Lloyds but carries its own insurance. If a company like a railway company or a great carrying company has sufficient resources to insure its own risks, as many of them have done to my knowledge for many years past, they should not be required to pay a premium to insurance companies. The best proof of solvency would be that they are prepared to make some deposit. The noble Earl tells me he will accept this and, therefore, I think I need not take up more of your Lordships' time.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: I did not mean that I could accept this Amendment here and now in this form. In the first place the amount will have to be £25,000 instead of £15,000 to agree with the rest of the Bill. But with the, observations of the noble Viscount as to railway companies I must say I really am in agreement. It is rather absurd that a company with vast resources should be expected to go to insure its risks with a company when its own resources are at least equal to those of the company which would carry the risks. There are, however, as the noble Viscount will appreciate, some technical difficulties, because when you deposit money with the Accountant-General you have to make clear under what rules and under what management the deposit is to be held. But we will consider how to give effect to the object of the noble Viscount and before the Report stage we will consult with the Board of Trade and see that the matter is in order.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Should it not be the deposit of securities to the value of £15,000 or £25,000?
EARL RUSSELL: We will consider that. I am not accepting the Amendment at the moment. I am simply saying we will bring up a clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "subject to any conditions contained in the policy." The noble Earl said: My purpose in moving this
1506
Amendment is really to ask the Minister what is intended by the inclusion of these words. It seems to us that these words by their very inclusion in the clause may enable an insurance company materially to modify its policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 19, leave out (" subject to any conditions contained in the policy ").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: The object of the words that the noble Earl wishes to omit is to interfere as little as possible with insurance companies in their present way of conducting their business. As I have pointed out, there may be various conditions. One may be that only the owner shall drive. In such a case he very often gets a reduced premium. It may be a condition that only the owner or one named person shall drive. In the insurance of private motor cars there is always the condition that the car shall be used as a private motor car and not for commercial purposes. All those conditions are part of the normal contract between the insurer and the insured. We are anxious not to disturb the normal contract in any way, but to keep it as it is.
EARL HOWE: May we take it from what the noble Earl has said that the presence of these words would not enable an insurance company to alter its benefits?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite know what the noble Earl means by "alter its benefits."
EARL HOWE: By reducing them.
EARL RUSSELL: The insurance company will have to issue a policy which will guarantee that a person who suffers in life or limb is compensated. That is all we are trying to do in this Part of the Bill. So long as that is done, we do not mind what else is provided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:—
"( ) Where in an action for damages brought against an insured person such person has put in a defence of 'diplomatic privilege' the plaintiff may by leave of the Court substitute the authorised insurer as the defendant in place of the insured person."

1507
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships may remember quite recently a case in which an insurance company, relying on a clause in the policy issued by them to a foreign diplomat, sought to avoid payment of damages because he did not raise the plea of diplomatic immunity. He had undertaken to raise any defence open to him. That diplomat, of course, behaved in a proper manner, but I believe there have been cases where foreign representatives have acted differently, and it is to cover such cases that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think it is at all desirable to interfere with anything that has to do with diplomatic privilege. Diplomatic privilege is itself an exception to the general law which is for the general convenience, and I do not think we want to do anything to interfere with it. The noble Viscount's Amendment suggests that in any action, if the plea of diplomatic privilege is put in, the plaintiff may substitute the authorised insurer.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: By leave of the Court.
EARL RUSSELL: It does not follow that there will be an authorised insurer. If the person driving the car is entitled to diplomatic privilege, he is not bound by the municipal regulations and would not be compelled to have an insurance policy in the first instance. Diplomatic privilege is an exception to the usual law, and I really think we had better not interfere with it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Did not the noble Earl see the case? A case was brought against a diplomat who did not plead diplomatic privilege. The insurance company tried to get out of paying the damages because he did not plead diplomatic immunity. There was a clause in his policy to the effect that he should raise any defence that they told him.
EARL RUSSELL: In rare cases, of course, it does happen that diplomatic privilege is abused. The recognised remedy in such cases is to desire that person to be recalled to his own country.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In that case he did not plead diplomatic immunity.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36:
Forgery of certificates.
36.—(1) If, with intent to deceive, any person—
(a) forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, a certificate of insurance or certificate of security; or
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "1913", to insert "or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person." The noble Viscount said: Similar words are employed in Clause 100, which deals with forgery of licences, and it occurs to me that, if they are necessary there, they are equally necessary here.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 41, after ("1913") insert ("or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment. It follows in substance the provisions of Clause 100.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Production of certificate of insurance or certificate of security on application for motor vehicle licence.
38. Provision may be made by Regulations under Section twelve of the Roads Act, 1920, for requiring a person applying for a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to produce a certificate of insurance or certificate of security:
Provided that nothing in the regulations shall require that the policy or security to which the certificate relates shall be a policy or security continuing in force for the whole of the period for which the licence is to be issued.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, before the proviso, to insert:
"and the issue of a licence under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, for a vehicle shall be deemed to be evidence that there is in force in relation to such vehicle

1509
until the date of the expiration of the licence such a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try and clear up the procedure in connection with the certificate of insurance. It is suggested that the carrying of the licence which you obtain only after you have shown the policy of insurance, should be sufficient for the purposes of the police or of any one else who has authority to demand it.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 38, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Perhaps it would be convenient if I asked the noble Earl another question on this clause before he replies. Has he considered what arrangements can be made in respect of the large companies of which I have been speaking on a previous clause, which employ a very large number of drivers? It would be quite impossible for each of those drivers when he gets his licence to carry with him the policy of insurance. The point has only to be stated to show how impossible it would be. I want to ask the noble Earl whether he has considered—if not, I am sure he will do so—what arrangement could be made, either in the Bill or by regulations, to enable the company itself to give the necessary certificate enabling the man to get his licence, so that he shall not be prosecuted for travelling without the certificate of the insurance company?
EARL RUSSELL: To reply first to the noble Viscount, we have already considered this question and we have been in preliminary touch with some large concerns whom it may affect. I believe we are perfectly clear that, by suitable regulations, this might be done. It might even be proper to make special regulations for every ease, but I think we have very little doubt that the thing can be done with the minimum of friction and trouble to the people concerned by proper regulations. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, I told your Lordships on the Second Reading that it was not until we bad avoided tying up the insurance with the licence—that is, making them run together and expire on the same date—that we were really
1510
able to make any progress with a practicable scheme. His Amendment again ties up the insurance with the licence. This is contrary to the whole of this scheme, and it will not do. The suggestion is that the licence shall be evidence that the insurance policy is in force. That, of course, it cannot be unless the insurance policy runs for exactly the same time as the licence, or longer. All we have suggested about the licence here is, as I said before, that at least once a year, or once a quarter, whenever a man goes for his licence, he has to show that he has at that time a policy in force. The aim of the Bill is not to link the two things together, but merely to make certain that there is one time when the certificate of insurance has to be produced, whether a policeman has asked for it on the road or not. The Amendment ties the two things together in a way which is contrary to the whole policy of this Part of the Bill, and therefore I regret that I cannot accept it.
EARL HOWE: I understand the noble Earl's explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.
39.—(1) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce his certificate, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that if the driver of a motor vehicle within three days after the date on which the production of his certificate was so required, produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.
(3) If in any case where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs involving personal injury to another person, the driver of the vehicle does not produce his certificate to a police constable, the driver shall report the accident at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident, and there produce his certificate and if he fails so to do, ho shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted under this subsection of the offence of failing to produce his certificate if within three days after the occurrence of the accident, he produces the certificate in person at such police station as may be specified by him at the time the accident was reported, or produces it on reporting the accident at a police station.
LORD SWAYTHLLNG LORD SWAYTHLLNG moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "three" and to insert "seven." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is similar to that which was moved on Clause 4 and was accepted. I propose in this clause to make it seven days instead of five days, as in Clause 4. I think seven days will be better in this clause, because the driver might be stopped in one part of the country while the owner was in a different part of the country and it might not be easy to communicate. I think seven days is a reasonable time to allow for the production of the certificate.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: We will accept "five," and it will then agree with the other part of the Bill. I think there is no reason to make a change in this place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "person, "to insert" or by his duly authorised representative." The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment to one moved on Clause 4 by Lord Howe, and on that clause the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said he would consider the Amendment, because there was a question of identification. In this case I do not see that the question of identification arises.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 12, after ("person") insert ("or by his duly authorised representative").—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot accept this now, because the Home Office has to be consulted. The question is being considered, and I hope to be able to give a definite answer on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "certificate" to insert "on being so required." The noble Viscount said: These words appear in similar circumstances in Clause 19 of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("certificate") insert ("on being so required").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment is not necessary. He has either got to produce his certificate to the police constable and if he does so the police constable takes the particulars, or if he prefers not to do that he can stop at the next police station.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 35, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 41, to insert as a new clause:—
"This Part of this Act shall not extend to public service vehicles within the meaning of Part IV of this Act but the Commissioners within the meaning of Part IV aforesaid when granting a road service licence in respect of any public service vehicle shall satisfy themselves that, and may in addition to the conditions which may be attached to the Licence under Section 62 (Road Service Licences) of this Act, attach a condition that the applicant for the licence will effect and keep on foot an insurance with an authorised insurer or a security within the meaning of this Part of this Act against, or make other adequate financial provision for meeting, any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of any injury or damage occasioned by such public service vehicle to any person or property and if any policy of insurance or any security effected by the applicant in order to comply with any such conditions aforesaid at any time lapses or otherwise becomes invalid the road service licence granted in respect of the public service vehicle to which the policy relates shall thereupon become void."
The noble Earl said: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House that I should read this Amendment. If not, I would like to explain its purpose. The purpose is really to avoid hardship which might be placed upon substantial omnibus companies which at present either put aside a proper reserve for meeting third-party

1513
claims, or have entered into mutual undertakings to indemnify each other against third-party claims. It is not quite the same case as was mentioned in Lord Brentford's Amendment or in Lord Newton's Amendment just now. There are companies like the British Electric Federation who do not actually own any omnibuses themselves, but they own about forty subsidiary companies, and if the Bill passes in its present form each one of those companies would have to take out an insurance policy or have to make a deposit of £25,000. This, of course, is not a very large sum in itself, but when multiplied in the case of this one undertaking by forty it amounts to a very considerable sum indeed. The purpose of my Amendment is to try to get over the difficulty, if it is at all possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This new clause is to provide that this Part of the Act shall not extend to public service vehicles within the meaning of Part IV, but the Commissioners when granting a road service licence shall satisfy themselves, and attach a condition, that the applicant for the licence will effect and keep on foot an insurance with an authorised insurer, or provide a security within the meaning of this Part of the Bill against, or make other adequate financial provision for meeting, any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of any injury or damage to third parties. That presents the very difficulty to which I referred before, as to a Minister having to choose which company is solvent and which is not. The words "adequate financial provision" really mean that the Commissioner is to sit in judgment on the financial position of these companies. It also quite unnecessarily and improperly separates public service vehicles from other vehicles which are to be insured. The insurance of all these vehicles is a general matter, and it does not follow that what is a public service vehicle may not be a contract carriage another day. I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I press the noble Earl a little upon this point? Can anything be done to get over the difficulty of a company such as I have described?
1514
If something could be done, even on the Report stage, to get over this difficulty, would the noble Earl be prepared to consider it?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Earl will give me fuller particulars of his difficulty, I will certainly consider the matter. It seems to me that if the holding company were really responsible for all the companies it might be possible for it to make a deposit. I will consider the matter if the noble Earl will give me the case which he has in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of users of highways.
42.—(1) The Minister shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act issue such directions as appear to him to be proper for the guidance of persons using roads.
(2) The Minister may from time to time revoke, vary or amend any directions issued by him under this section.
(3) The Minister shall cause the directions for the time being in force under this section to be printed and put on sale at a price not exceeding one penny for each copy, and the directions so in force shall be called "the highway code."
(4) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the highway code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative, any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:—
" (3) Such directions and any revocation, variation or amendment thereof shall not be valid for any purpose unless and until a Resolution approving of the same shall have been passed by both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: Lord Howe has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf I withdrew my own Amendment in order that it should not fetter consideration of the full clause. I think there should be some Amendment on which full consideration of this new code should be given by the House. The new code was discussed on the Second Reading, and it is a very important proposal made by the Minister. Of course much depends upon whether the new

1515
code is to have legal force, or whether it is to be merely a model code of suggestions which it is piously hoped all motorists, drivers of vehicles and pedestrians will carry out to the best of their ability. I think there would be a very great advantage in the noble Earl propounding some such code as that. I am not going to trouble the Committee by discussing the individual suggestions made by the Royal Commission. We have all seen the Report and can see that it is a very widespread code, which would affect all drivers of vehicles and the ordinary foot passenger using the roads of the country. If anything like the code laid down by the Royal Commission were carried out it would in many cases affect the existing highway law, also a great deal of the Common Law of the land.
If your Lordships will look at subsection (4) your Lordships will see that while any failure on the part of any person to obey the code is not to be the basis of a criminal charge, at the same time the second part of that subsection gives the code a very real legal significance. Under it one or other of the parties in a criminal charge or civil action might be cross-examined, and a counsel might ask: "Did you observe Rule So-and-so of the Minister's code? Did you fail to carry out suggestion No. So-and-so of the Minister's regulations for motor cars and foot passengers?" That would inevitably in the eyes of the jury give a semi-legal significance to this code. It is quite impossible for an ordinary jury, when a man is cross-examined in the case of a charge, not to be influenced by the questions of counsel. An astute counsel asks: "Did you observe such-and-such a clause?" The man says "No." "Did you walk on the left side of the road before the accident occurred?" The reply is "No; I do not think I did." At once the counsel looks round to the jury with a significant expression, and says: "Did you hear that? He really is guilty of negligence himself." That cannot possibly be permitted unless the code is passed by Parliament.
I am at present moving the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe but, if I may be allowed to say so, there is a very much better Amendment to Clause 99, by Lord Askwith, because that Amendment,
1516
which Lord Askwith proposes to apply to regulations made under the authority of this Bill, could be utilised better than Lord Howe's Amendment, by making this new code and any alterations in it come before both Houses of Parliament, and both Houses of Parliament must then approve the draft of the new code with or without modification. That is a much greater power and gives to both Houses the opportunity when this new code is produced, of saying: "We like nine-tenths of this code, but we should like to alter Regulation No. 27 or No. 28." In all these debates one is not asking that the noble Earl should accept the ipsissima verba of any particular Amendment, but I should like the noble Earl and Lord Howe to consider whether they would accept Lord Askwith's suggestion, which is wider and better. If it were accepted it might be possible to allow the latter part of subsection (4) to remain in the Bill, but I am quite certain that it would be wrong to allow the latter part of subsection (4) to remain in the Bill unless these regulations were subject to the authority of Parliament. We discussed the question of the authority of Parliament yesterday, and I think the House takes, and will take in coming years, an increasingly strong view that Parliament must be consulted on this question of regulations. This is not a question of regulation of familiar forms, it is a question of a new code altering the law. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, is for once with me in this matter, and I am quite sure that, as I have his support, the noble Earl will be very wise to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD ATKIN: I should like to support very strongly the Amendment that has been proposed, and indeed I should like it in its strengthened form. It seems to me to be necessary. This code will probably serve a very useful purpose—I can quite understand that—and a great deal of it, if it follows the suggestions that were made in the Report of the Royal Commission, would be advisory, and would contain, no doubt, very useful advice. Subsection (4) provides that a breach of the provisions of the code is to be taken into account in determining either the criminal or civil liability of any person under this Bill, or indeed

1517
generally. The result of that is that a breach of this code would be treated as evidence of negligence, either to support a criminal charge or to support civil liability. The degree or measure of care that has been required of drivers on the one hand and of pedestrians on the other has been the subject of discussion in the Common Law for generations, and the rights of pedestrians have been well established for generations. This is a provision that the Minister may, by a direction which does not come before Parliament at all, make a regulation which may seriously affect the well-established right of pedestrians on the one hand and drivers of vehicles on the other affecting the use of the highway, which has been, as I say, the subject-matter of legal decision for untold years.
Now, it appears to me quite impossible that Parliament should submit to the law of the highway being altered by any Minister, however well advised, merely by direction. It ought to be done, if it is done at all, by Parliament. And also, I venture to suggest, it would be very inconvenient, if the House comes to that conclusion, that Parliament should only have the right to say that it either accepts or rejects the regulations as a whole. There ought to be a power of qualifying the regulations, because it may very well be that objection could only be taken to two, three, or four of the regulations, and that they could quite easily be modified. But Parliament ought to have the voice and the power of decision as to what that modification should be. I think this provision as to the code is one of the most important and far-reaching provisions of this Bill. On those grounds it seems to me of great importance that Parliament should retain a control over the eventual form that these regulations take.
EARL RUSSELL: I think our discussion upon this code must depend upon what view we take of it. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has spoken all the time of altering the highway law and as if this was a new code of law. My own view of it has always been, as I think I told your Lordships before, that it was merely to be general directions as to what it would be desirable for people to do upon the roads, but without any authority. Of course,
1518
the view that has been taken by the noble Viscount opposite is due, no doubt, to the last five lines of subsection (4). I was going to propose to leave out those words from "but any such failure" to the end of that subsection, because my own view is that this should be, as I said before, a code which lives merely by its own inherent authority and reasonableness and by its general acceptance by the public. If you are going to make it, as now seems to be contemplated, anything like a code which is binding upon people or has legal effect, I think you should do even more than is proposed in the Amendment which has now been moved by the noble Viscount opposite. If you are going to make this legal and binding upon people you should not merely submit it to Parliament and take an approving Resolution, I think you should really have the cods itself drawn up by a Joint Select Committee if it is to represent the opinion of Parliament.
There are two possible views. The one is the view that it is to have legal effect and the other is the view that it is to have only moral effect. My own view has always been that it should only have moral effect, that it should be a code issued by the Minister saying that such and such things are desirable and that by the general consensus of opinion amongst those who use the roads, be they motorists, pedestrians or others, there would arise a custom and convention by which this was thought to be a reasonable code which people would follow. If it is to have legal effect it will want very much more careful consideration, and I think it likely that you will not be able to put into it a great many desirable things that you could put into it if it consisted largely of moral exhortations.
I should be glad to know which view your Lordships propose to take. As I have told your Lordships my own view was always in favour of the moral effect, leaving out the words at the end of subsection (4). I am not sure—probably the noble and learned Lord will say if there is any legal alteration—whether that might make any difference. Your Lordships will remember the illustration that I gave was to the effect that if the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club joined forces and represented

1519
one motoring body obviously any code issued by them would have very considerable moral weight and would, no doubt, be accepted because it would be supported by the opinion of the public which had to be controlled by it. If it is suggested that this is to be a legal code I cannot help thinking that in many ways it will be of much less use because of the difficulty of putting into a code which is to have the force of law all those suggestions and all those bits of advice and so on which you could put into a code which is really only good advice and not good law. I should be much obliged if the Committee would consider what view it would take of this matter.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said as, indeed, there always is in what he says. At the same time I cannot help feeling that he is striving for something which is unattainable. If you put any provision into this Bill giving power to the Ministry to draw up a code of advice, call it what you will, it must have an immense effect in any legal proceedings that are taken under the measure. I think it is much better to recognise that, and to have it done with all the sense of responsibility and care which would be achieved if you had to bring this thing before both Houses of Parliament; subject if you like—I am content to take either Lord Askwith's words or the words on the Paper—to modification and addition as well as to assent. I think that is of the greatest importance.
The noble Earl will forgive me, but I am a little afraid of just letting any Department issue advice in that kind of way under the authority of an Act of Parliament without any control by Parliament at all. After all, it might mean that they would put into it some things which the noble Earl would think very desirable and which very likely I should think very desirable, but which other people would not, and that would bring the whole thing into disrepute. Whereas if it has to be brought before Parliament there is a guarantee that the elected representatives of the country and your Lordships are of opinion that it is a reasonable thing. It gives it much more authority. On the other hand, it makes it far less liable to casual experiments by any enthusiast, if there ever should be such a thing as an enthusiast at the
1520
Ministry of Transport, which I cannot say I think very likely. It might happen, one never knows; the most astonishing things do happen. I certainly very strongly support the Amendment of which notice has been given and I confess that though I am very much moved by anything that falls from the noble Earl, I think in this case he will make a grave mistake in not accepting the Amendment.
Then he says they will become really rules and not advice. Is not that rather a desirable thing? Is it not really rather desirable from the point of view of the motorist as much as the other person to know the kind of conditions which at any rate as a minimum he ought to fulfil in order to be a careful and proper driver? I think it is very desirable. The certainty of the law is the thing that really matters. I occasionally hear from some of your Lordships a desire greatly to increase the penalties on offenders, to have exemplary punishments for people who drive recklessly and wickedly. I agree that may be desirable, but I do not think it will do much to increase the safety of the roads. What is really essential is that any infringement of the law, any dangerous or careless driving, should always be punished. It is certainty in the law that matters far more. I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin would agree with me that it is the certainty of punishment much more than the extent of the punishment which diminishes crime. That seems to me to be one of the most elementary principles of law which has been constantly exemplified. Therefore, I am all for anything which will make more precise, more clear, and more certain the rules of law which are to be observed.
For that reason I should like to see this provision, with the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Brentford has moved. I think it will be an immensely valuable provision. Indeed, I think it will be the most valuable provision in the whole Bill. It is the only thing which reconciles me to a great many of the provisions which I think are very much less than are required by the terrible circumstances we have to meet. If you can get a real code which will be effective and binding on all motorists and which will have some chance of being really enforced, I think you will have made a great step forward towards

1521
safer driving. We talk of reckless motorists, dangerous driving and that kind of thing. In reality that is not the real danger. The number of reckless, wicked motorists is very small—I make a present of that to my noble friend. There are very few of them; they are extremely rare. The great mass of the accidents are clue to the nature of the case, to the fact that you are now running on the roads amongst traffic, pedestrian and other of a very different character, a new kind of traffic much more rapid, much more dangerous in the sense of being much more likely to do grave injury if there is an accident, and you have not made the same kind of provision that you make in order that things shall be safe on the railways, for instance, on the sea, or on the tramways. You have not the kind of guarantees and precautions that you have enacted in order to make rapid and heavy traffic safe in other conditions. That is the real cause of the great mass of the accidents which occur. It is not recklessness. It is not wickedness. If it was it would be much easier to deal with. It is from the nature of the case, and it is for that reason that I support most warmly this provision, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brentford will stick to his Amendment which seems to me vital to its real effectiveness.
EARL HOWE: This suggestion of a code of the highway was first put forward before the Royal Commission on Transport, according to the first Report, by the Chairman of the Royal Automobile Club, Sir Arthur Stanley, on behalf of a conference of motor organisations. I should like to say, so far as I am concerned, I most warmly support the noble Viscount in everything he has just said. I believe that until we get some sort of code of the highway which does really have the force of law we shall not have done anything. We shall not have put a line in this Bill, for instance, to reduce the appalling casualties on the road to-day. For information as to what a code of the highway is likely to contain, we turn to the First Report of the Royal Commission on Transport. The first part deals with drivers of motor vehicles, the second part deals with horses and horse-drawn vehicles, the third part with pedal cyclists, and the fourth with pedestrians, and there is a summary at the end.
1522
I think it is absolutely essential that in the interests of public safety all forms of traffic on the highway should be regulated by law. It is not only the motor traffic that requires regulation by law, but I think the pedestrian traffic, in the interests of public safety, ought to submit to reasonable regulations such as have been found necessary in practically every other country, including our Dominions overseas. It is absurd to lay out great expenditure upon providing footpaths and refuges in our public streets when their existence is completely disregarded by pedestrian traffic. You put up notices all over London "Please cross here," and you see them more honoured in the breach than the observance. I hope that all these forms of traffic which use the highway will be regulated by a form of law, and that is why I welcome the Amendment which Lord Askwith has down on the Paper, and which I most gladly accept. I entirely support what the noble Viscount has said.
LORD HANWORTH: May I add a word or two to reinforce the views expressed by the last two speakers? I understand Lord Russell to say that what are going to be issued are mere directions which will not have the force of law, but will, after a certain time, be gradually accepted as a code to which drivers ought to conform. If you will turn to the clause itself it is to be observed that in the next subsection these directions are to be called "the highway code," and in a further subsection they may be relied upon—although they are not to be the basis of criminal or civil proceedings—by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings. You may say they are only directions, that it is only hoped they will be a code; but visualise a case which is brought into Court, either for civil or criminal liability. The code is produced. It will be issued by the King's printer. It will be evidence and it could be relied upon to impose a liability or to negative a liability which is sought to be imposed in those proceedings. Can anyone suppose that code will not be treated as having been issued under the Act and having all the force of law? When you come to look at what the provision for the user is in the clause it is almost idle to contend that they are mere direc

1523
tions and not law. They will have the force, and can be used as having the force, of establishing or negativing a liability. In those circumstances I should have thought it was of the highest importance that Parliament should have the opportunity of considering the nature of those directions, and I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment. Certainly I think it is one which the House ought to insist upon.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope this Amendment may be accepted. It does not seem to me to matter whether you call it moral exhortation or code or anything else, if it is issued under the authority of the Minister it will, as has just been said, have very great weight in any civil or criminal proceeding. One of the first questions which the defendant will be asked will be: "Are you aware you have violated one of the provisions of this code?" If he says he has never read the code he will be told it was a very gross omission on his part; he will be told he had no business to go on the road without reading this code. If, on the other hand, he says he has read it, and then admits that he broke it, perhaps it will be a little worse for him. It really does not matter what you call it. It is going to be a list of directions or declarations of the utmost importance, and I do urge most strongly on the Minister that a code of that importance should not be issued by him without the authority of Parliament. Whether it has legal significance or not does not matter: it will have a great effect and Parliament should have a voice in framing that code. The noble Earl talked of leaving out the last four lines of subsection (4). I do not think that would have the slightest effect, because the code would be used against the defendant either in criminal or civil proceedings without the four last lines being inserted in the Act.
EARL RUSSELL: I am still afraid your Lordships are making a mistake in taking this view of the code, but we shall have a clear month to think it over. I still think that the code would be far more useful as a recommendation without any legal force than as a set of laws. It is quite obvious that if it is a set of laws you have to be extremely careful what you put in it, and extremely precise in your definitions, because there is to be a penalty for breaking it. That seems to
1524
me a little as if you took a sermon containing a great deal of moral advice, couched in vague and general terms, and tried to turn it into an Act of Parliament. It would not have the same effect. My own view was that a code should be a sermon not an Act of Parliament. Your Lordships, apparently, take the other view. I hope you will consider very seriously in what form the code is likely to do most good, but if it is to be, as your Lordships seem to think, a code of law, then I have no objection to the words that the noble Viscount has moved, and, at any rate at this stage, I will accept them.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD SANDHURST: The proposed Amendment to Clause 99, I see, relates to regulations, and this clause does not deal with regulations, but that is a minor matter, and can easily be corrected when we come to it. But the remark I have to make is this, that if this be a code of law it ought to be embodied in the Bill—in my submission in a Schedule to the Bill. On the other hand, if it is not to be a code of law, then I would suggest that we should not use the word "directions" or "code" but merely the word "recommendations." If we strike out the lines at the end of the fourth subsection then I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl that his method is the better one. It does seem to me that in an experimental matter—and this will be largely an experimental matter—there ought to be a considerable amount of elasticity. For example, recommendations to pedestrians in a town like London or in a large city would be quite inapplicable to the pedestrians in a country lane. Therefore there needs to be a good deal of elasticity, and, as the matter is in an experimental stage, I should think that it would be better not to deal with it as a code of law.
LORD DARLING: I should like to say a word on what the noble Earl said just now. He said we shall have a month or some such time to think this over and that he hopes that within that time those who are thinking will come to the conclusion that it is much better to leave it as he is proposing, not as a law but as what he calls something of moral obligation. Well, when a moral obligation has been acted upon for a consider

1525
able time, even lawyers themselves cannot distinguish between that and the law itself. The noble Earl must know, because he is a lawyer himself, that the greater part of the law of England depends upon no surer foundation. Communis error facit jus. The mistake of the mob becomes the law of England. I translate freely for the benefit of those outside. When this has been enforced before magistrates and by juries for a considerable time, it would be useless to say: "This is not the law; you are not breaking the law. These are only put in by Ministers as bits of advice which are moral obligations." It will not have been in action long before everybody will think it is the law and those who are administering the law, at all events except the Court of Appeal and this very room, will treat it as if it were the law and people will be punished for breaking what is only, in the opinion of the noble Earl opposite, a moral obligation.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: There is only one word I would like to say as the noble Earl has appealed to us to treat this as a form of sermon. He is at liberty tonight to preach a sermon. He or the Minister can issue a code, but the moment he issues a code with the authority of an Act of Parliament it will be treated as part and parcel of the Act of Parliament. I have no doubt the Minister of Transport will head it. "Code issued under the Provisions of the Road Traffic Act." If it is not done so the first day it will be done the next by an officious clerk and it will be treated as part of the Act. The noble Earl must make up his mind. He may preach his sermon if he likes, but, if it is to be preached under the Act of Parliament, then, with great deference, we must see the sermon. The noble Earl has said that he will accept it, and in order that he may not preach a sermon which has not been approved by Parliament, I will move my Amendment in this form:—
"Before such directions are issued under this section, they shall he laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such directions shall not be issued unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications and additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Minister may issue the directions in the form in which they have been so approved."
1526
As the noble Earl says he will accept it I hope your Lordships will approve. This will give the noble Lord time for a month or so to consider what form of sermon will be preached.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think that is all right. There may be a little alteration in the draft, but that can be considered. I would like to express my great joy that the noble Earl has found sermons so very effective in the past.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43:
Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads.
43.—(1) The Minister may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough and after holding a public inquiry by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles, or of any specified class or description of vehicles, on any specified road within the area of the council in any case in which it appears to him, having regard to the result of the inquiry, to be proved that any such vehicles cannot be used, or cannot without restriction be used, on that road without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein, or of other persons using the road, or that the road is unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles:
Provided that where the application is an application solely for the restriction of the speed of motor vehicles, the provision in this subsection shall have effect as if references to a public inquiry were not contained therein.
(2) The Minister may on the application of the council of any county or county borough, or of any borough, not being a county borough, or urban district having a population of over twenty thousand according to the last census for the time being and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction.
(3) The Minister may at any time after giving notice to the council on whose application an order under this section, or an order under the corresponding provision of any enactment repealed by this Act, was

1527
made and after considering any objections made by that council and, except where he thinks that the case is one in which a public inquiry should be held, without holding any public inquiry, revoke, vary or amend the order.
(6) Any person who uses or permits the use of a motor vehicle in contravention of an order made under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "county borough," to insert "or of any authority, company or person owning or working any tramway (which expression shall in this Act include a light railway constructed in a road) under the authority of any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act." The noble Lord said: This is somewhat the same point that I raised at another place and as the noble Earl said he would produce a redraft at another stage I trust he will take the same view in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 33, after ("county borough") insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is intended to give these private concerns working for profit on a tramway the same Power as a local authority.
LORD ASKWITH: Under the authority of any special Act.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, but it is to give them powers which are really only proper to a local authority. I think it is quite unreasonable that they should be given powers, as is suggested here, to apply to the Minister to restrict the driving of other vehicles on the public road.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to omit the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This clause gives a Minister power to make orders restricting traffic on certain roads. The proviso which I propose to omit says that the Minister need not hold a public inquiry where the application is solely for making a speed limit for motor vehicles. I submit to the House that the view is most strongly held by the motor organisations that there ought to be a public inquiry in such a case and that the proviso ought therefore to be omitted. A public inquiry has,
1528
I believe, always been necessary up to now in such cases, and on the whole has worked very well. There is no reason for avoiding a public inquiry where it is thought that a speed limit should be imposed, and I hope the Minister will consider my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, leave out lines 8 to 11.—(Earl Howe.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to protect Earl Russell's Amendment I will put the Question "That line 8 stand part."
EARL RUSSELL: I remember, perhaps better than the noble Earl, these inquiries in earlier days on the question of speed limits, when the whole country was speckled by anxious towns with speed limits which, so far as I know, have never been observed by anybody. In those days the principle was much the same. There were a great many cases where no public inquiry was held, and on the other hand public inquiries were held where the representative organisations objected. In those days it was the Local Government Board that made the order. I believe inquiries were always held when it was really necessary, but there does not seem to be any necessity for holding a public inquiry if there is no strong representation that the proposed limit is an improper one. I quite agree that it would not be reasonable for the Minister to restrict speed on a large number of main roads without giving people an opportunity of being heard: but it never has been done before. People always have had full opportunity of being heard and I really think it is unnecessary to order a public inquiry in every case. I hope the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I think after what the noble Earl has said that I will withdraw the Amendment, provided that it is quite clear that in ease of objection being taken the Minister will hold an inquiry.
EARL RUSSELL: I have already said more than once that the Ministry of Transport is the most reasonable Ministry in existence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: There is one point which I think should be considered, and that is how is a reasonable person to find out whether the Ministry is going

1529
to act or not. I well remember the old question of speed limits, but the difference between the noble Earl and myself is that I tried to carry them out. I do not remember any such words as these in any Act of Parliament dealing with the matter. If you are going to have words saying that a public inquiry shall not take place I think there ought to be some provision for the Minister of Transport to give notice that he is considering an application made by the council of such and such a county and that objections may be lodged. Otherwise motorists may not know about the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I will consider the point. I am not sure what kind of notice was given in the old days but I know the matter was brought to notice. I do not think the words would prevent the holding of a public inquiry. They merely say it is not necessary. However I will consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 9, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: May I make one observation on this? I want to say how pleased I am that the noble Earl is at last trying to include other vehicles.
EARL RUSSELL: I thought the noble Earl would be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Lord said: I desire to move the omission of these subsections which give the Minister power on the application of the council of any county or county borough to prohibit vehicles driving on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction. That may be perhaps all right in Piccadilly, though personally I do not think the roundabout traffic system has been any use at all except to be extremely dangerous to pedestrians. Pedestrians were in a bad position before, but since roundabout traffic has been introduced they are in a
1530
still worse position. But consider what may happen presuming, unfortunately, that the Minister in whom the noble Earl has so much faith is no longer Minister. The Minister may say that on a county road—take any county you like, say Wiltshire—that on a county road perhaps leading from Swindon to Devizes traffic may only go in one direction. Surely it cannot be intended to give the Minister power to do a thing of that sort? In those circumstances I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL RUSSELL: It always may be possible that on a road outside a borough boundary this arrangement may be desirable. Suppose there are two ways into a town. It may be for the convenience of traffic that one road should be used as the way in and the other as the way out. No one can tell how much more congested our roads are going to get than they are now, or how much regulation may be necessary. Has the noble Lord realised at all what will happen? Nothing happens unless and until the Minister is moved by the local authority. The local authority representing the people in the district have to make up their minds that there is a prima facie case for doing this. Then they approach the Minister. Then the Minister has to hold a public inquiry, at which all objectors can be heard, and it is not until after the matter has been fully gone into that an order is made. I am sure that much as the noble Lord dislikes motors he would rather that they should proceed in the easiest and most orderly way where there is congested traffic.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not know why the noble Earl says I dislike motors. I have never said so.
EARL RUSSELL: I had gathered it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Earl must not gather things in that way, or else he may fall into traps which he has up to the present time avoided. It is quite true that a Minister cannot do anything unless an application is made by a county council or county borough council, but has the noble Earl much confidence in county borough councils? I have none whatever. They do all sorts of extremely foolish things,

1531
they are full of the importance of their little office and they are quite likely, possibly in order to annoy a neighbour or to show how important they are, to make representations to the Minister, and if we are so unfortunate as not to have the present Minister nobody knows what may happen. Personally I should like to press the Amendment if I had any support.
EARL RUSSELL: I have heard people rash enough to say that Parliament sometimes does foolish things.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, very often, especially now.
EARL RUSSELL: All I can say is that local authorities represent the people in the district and all Parliament can do is to trust them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 39, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, at the end of the clause to insert:—
"No order made under this section shall apply to the driving of any tramcar or trolley vehicle in pursuance of the powers of any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
EARL RUSSELL: I can accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether the effect of this Amendment would not be to permit tramcars to go in both directions while other forms of traffic were compelled to go in one direction only? I understand Parliament has already refused to grant this privilege in the case of Private Bills. I have encountered one or two such cases myself in certain provincial towns where trams have been going in the opposite direction to the general run of traffic. It has led to a great deal of confusion and actually to accidents.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl is quite correct. That may be the effect of the Amendment. Where you are trying
1532
to get a one-way traffic system trams would continue to run the wrong way. The reason is that a tramway company is a statutory company with statutory powers and the Minister thinks that where a tramway company is required to divert very expensive tracks the matter should more properly be done by negotiation and agreement than by issuing an order to say they must go another way.
LORD ASKWITH: Or by another Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but is it not rather rash to allow tram-cars to go at any speed in this case? Are they, because they are constituted under the authority of an Act of Parliament, to be quite free from any control under this clause? I understand that control must not be so exercised as to make the tramways useless, but, as the noble Earl has said several times, the Ministry of Transport is a most reasonable authority and is not likely to use powers to that extent.
EARL RUSSELL: Tramways are controlled by the Tramways Act, 1870, and orders made under it, and that includes limits of speed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Erection of notice boards, etc.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges, no such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid other than such as comply with the regulations under this Part of this Act shall be erected, placed or displayed upon or adjacent to any road or otherwise than in conformity with any such general or special directions as aforesaid, or by any person other than the highway authority or a person authorised by the highway authority.
(3) The highway authority shall by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of any land on which any such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid is erected or displayed to remove it if it is not authorised by the highway authority, and if any person fails to comply with such a notice the highway authority may themselves effect the removal, doing as little damage as may be, and may

1533
recover summarily as a civil debt from the person so in default the expense incurred by them in so doing.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to add to subsection (2):—
"Nothing in this subsection shall apply to any signal, direction post, sign or device erected, placed or displayed by the owners or workers of any tramway in pursuance of powers conferred by any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act."
The noble Lord said: I move this for the reason that otherwise there would be power to interfere with special Acts of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, after line 23, insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I had rather not accept this Amendment offhand, but I am with the noble Lord on the principle of the Amendment. I think we ought to have some proviso that these signals should not interfere with any new signals used on the roads, so that there shall be no confusion, but I am with him on the general point that the tramways, being worked under statutory authority, have to be excluded and ought not to be interfered with. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider the point.
LORD ASKWITH: Would the noble Earl accept the Amendment as I have moved it and put in a proviso on Report?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Lord prefers it, I will accept the Amendment now and amend it afterwards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "land," to insert "or building." The noble Viscount said: In moving this Amendment I have in mind two enormous notices on a factory just this side of High Wycombe on the Oxford road. The first notice warns you that there is a very dangerous entrance, but the second one almost amounts to insolence, because it says a few yards further on: "You have been warned." It is to provide for the removal of such notices that I put this Amendment down. Usually notices are on boards placed in the ground, but this one is actually on the wall, and I want to be sure that such notices can be taken away.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 25, after ("land") insert ("or building").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The Amendment is quite unnecessary. "Land" includes buildings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: Before we pass from this clause, which refers to special legislation in connection with tramways, light railways and so on, I should like to ask the noble Earl if we are going to allow the situation to remain as it is, or will legislation be proposed in future to bring tramways and light railways more or less into line with common practice? It may be that, as conditions on the roads get more difficult, this question will be found very much more urgent. I hope that we shall not for ever have a special law exempting tramways, light railways and so on from the operations of this measure.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not quite sure that I understand the noble Earl's question, and I certainly cannot answer it properly without notice. If he will write to me and tell me exactly what he has in mind, I will have it enquired into and give him a reply at a later stage.
EARL HOWE: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45:
Penalties for neglect of traffic directions.
45. Where a police constable, or a person duly authorised by a chief officer of police, is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where any signal or sign approved or prescribed by the Minister has been erected by lawful authority for the purpose of directing the movement or line of movement of traffic, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable or other person so authorised in the execution of his duty, or to conform to the indication given by the signal or sign aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, before "neglects," to insert "wilfully." The noble Lord said: Some people think that the insertion of this word would make the clause more clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, after ("who") insert ("wilfully").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I hope your Lordships will not insert this word. It does not add to the meaning of the clause, and Acts of Parliament are better without it.
EARL HOWE: I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the word "wilfully" does appear in Section 9 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, from which this particular clause is actually taken.
EARL RUSSELL: If that is so, I think it shows that they thought it advisable not to put it in here.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, which might lead to a very awkward position. Somebody refuses to obey a police signal and does not stop. He says: "I did not do it wilfully. It was accidental. I was looking the other way "—or something of that sort. I do not like often to support the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, though I have been unfortunately obliged to do so on two or three occasions, but on this occasion I should certainly support him.
LORD ASKWITH: I do not agree with the noble Lord's view of what "wilfully" means, but from the legal point of view I do not think it is very important, and I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46:
Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions.
46. If any person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or any trailer drawn thereby to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he shall be guilty of an offence, but a conviction for such an offence shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence under Part I of this Act.
EARL RUSSELL: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not during the hours of darkness stop his vehicle or leave it standing on a road so that the white lights on the vehicle are showing towards vehicles approaching on the same side of the road and any person offending against this provision shall he guilty of an offence under this Act."
The noble Earl said: I should like to submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is really most urgently required. It will be within the experience of many of your Lordships, driving at night, to come across a motor vehicle facing the wrong way with its lights on and, if you are endeavouring to be considerate to other road users and are not actually using your headlights and the lighting of the road is not very good, you are apt to think that the car drawn up the wrong way with its lights facing you is in fact on its own side of the road, with the result that you steer to the left, go on the foothpath and perhaps run into somebody there. This is not an exaggerated statement because I believe this happened in the case of a very serious accident the other day at Maidenhead, where at least two, or it may even have been three, people were killed, and this was the actual cause of the accident. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: All that the noble Earl says about the danger of cars in this position at night is perfectly true, but it is fully covered by the clause as it is. If your Lordships will look at line 17, you will find the words:
"….to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road…."
This covers not only this case but all other cases where a stationary vehicle is so left as to be dangerous.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If the noble Earl says so, we should, of course, accept it, but I confess that on reading the words I should not have thought that they necessarily covered the case of cars drawn up on the wrong side of the road with lights burning. I have

1537
had letters about this question of lights which show that it is a very serious matter. There is no doubt that a great number of accidents are caused in this way. I hope the noble Earl will look into the point again, if it is not asking him too much, in order to be quite sure that the point is covered.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble Viscount cannot have any doubt that such conditions as have been mentioned would be "likely to cause danger to other persons." I can assure; him that there would be no difficulty in getting a conviction.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: This time I do not agree with the noble Earl. I do not think that Clause 46 covers these cases. The case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howe Actually occurred, and I have knowledge of a similar case. A person is driving along the road on the near side. He sees in front of him the headlights of a car. He thinks that the car is coming towards him and he moves still further to the near side. The result is that he gets on the footpath and kills somebody, and the excuse is that he saw the lights but thought the car was moving towards him and naturally turned to his near side. This clause does not really deal with the question, because it refers only to any vehicle which is caused—
"to remain at rest on any road in such a position or in such condition and such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger…."
What my noble friend wants is to define exactly a very dangerous practice which has resulted in the death of certain people.
If the Amendment is superfluous, there is no harm in putting it in. Why not insert it and make it quite clear? Then, when a motorist reads the Bill, instead of seeing a vague statement about a dangerous position he will see clearly that, if he pulls up on the wrong side of the road with his lights on, he is committing an offence, and that he must turn round and put himself on the near side, where he should have been in the first instance. I earnestly hope that my noble friend will proceed to a Division if this Amendment is not accepted. Considering the way in which we have endeavoured to help the noble Earl by withdrawing our Amendments or not moving them, it is a little hard that he
1538
should turn round and say he will not accept a reasonable thing like this.
LORD SWAYTHLING: As one having sympathy with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. I would point out that the new subsection does not mention headlights but white lights, and if a car pulls up on the wrong side of the street, even in London, the driver will have committed an offence under this Amendment. I think that would be too drastic a remedy.
EARL HOWE: With reference to the remarks of the last speaker, in Paris, as no doubt he knows, a car is not in any circumstances allowed to draw up on the wrong side of the street. If it is quite clear from what the noble Earl has said that this point is covered in the Bill, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 46, to insert as a new clause:—
Motor vehicles to carry sound warning instruments.
. Every motor vehicle when used on a road shall carry a bell or other instrument or mechanical device capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach and position of the motor vehicle and the driver of the motor vehicle shall whenever necessary give such audible and sufficient warning by sounding the bell or other instrument or mechanical device.
The noble Earl said: On studying this Bill I could discover no clause which necessitated the carrying of horns or other means of giving audible warning of the approach of a motor car. Motor cars have been governed since 1896 first by the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and afterwards by the Motor Car Act of 1903, and both required the carrying of a bell or other instrument for giving adequate warning of approach. I understand that this Bill repeals the existing laws, and therefore I beg leave to move my Amendment,
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 23, at end, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl has been very industrious in helping the Minister to make regulations, but I think he has overlooked that this Amendment is not necessary. The regulation as to

1539
sound warning is now under Article 4 of the Motor Cars Use and Construction Order, 1904, and this Bill gives adequate power to make regulations which will cover this. It will be something equivalent to a new Use and Construction Order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47:
Provisions with respect to stretching of ropes, &c., across roads.
47. Any person who for any purpose places or causes to be placed any rope, wire or other apparatus across a road or any part thereof in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the road shall, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, be guilty of an offence.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to leave out the first "road" and insert "public highway." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to ascertain whether "road" here includes roads on the property of a dock and harbour authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, leave out ("road") and insert ("public highway").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
EARL RUSSELL: A road is defined in the Bill as including a public high way or any roadway to which the public have access. If the public have access to a dock company's premises, then it is proper that the public should be warned of a hidden danger. Either the Bill does not apply because it is not a public place, or if it is a public place the Bill ought to apply.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: The public have access, but it is not a right of access, and I was proposing to move later to add the words "right of access."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, after "thereof," to insert "without proper authority." The noble Lord said: The clause which I seek to amend makes any one guilty of an offence who places a wire across a road without giving adequate warning of the danger, and the penalty for the offence under Clause 101 is, unless otherwise stated, a fine not exceeding £20. Your Lordships will observe also that no attempt is made in this clause to restrict the
1540
placing of wire across a road. The interest I take in this clause is due to the fact that I remember that in July of last year a lady and her maid and chauffeur, the last named a very steady driver who had been with the family for years, were instantaneously killed by a wire stretched across the road by a private contractor, who had bought some logs at the side of the road. The coroner's jury found the men guilty of manslaughter, but at the Assizes they were acquitted on the ground that they were acting under the orders of their employer. Shortly afterwards a similar case occurred. I cannot remember the facts, and I only mention it to show that the first case was not an isolated one. This stretching of wire across a road was, as I understand, a recognised method of killing people during the Irish troubles, and it kills here, and what I want to ask your Lordships to do is to try and persuade the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to restrict this practice to cases of necessity. I have put down an Amendment to say that it is not to be done without proper authority, and in a subsequent Amendment I have made it an offence if it is done. I do not know whether my suggestions are really suitable, but I hope your Lordships will assist me in trying to restrict this highly dangerous practice.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, after ("thereof") insert ("without proper authority").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
EARL RUSSELL: I wrote to the noble Lord in connection with this and his subsequent Amendment, to point out to him that they really weaken the clause instead of strengthening it, but I do not seem to have convinced the noble Lord. As the clause stands, it makes it an offence for anybody to stretch a wire right across the road, unless there is proper protection and warning given. The person who does so has to prove that he has taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger and if he has not he is guilty of an offence. The noble Lord's Amendments provide that if he kills someone by this means he is to be liable on conviction to six months imprisonment.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I have not moved that Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: No, but I am taking the effect of these Amendments together. I do not know why that should be the case, because that considerably weakens the clause. If he kills anybody now he is guilty of manslaughter, for which he will be awarded any imprisonment that is suitable. If the object of the noble Lord is to prohibit the stretching of wires or ropes across a road then I am afraid he is asking for something which is not possible, because I understand that in removing large trees it is sometimes necessary for a short time to obstruct the highway by stretching a wire rope across it. Another of the noble Lord's Amendments speaks of "proper authority," but I do not know who the proper authority is, or who, indeed, has authority to authorise obstruction of the highway. I think this clause does the best that can be done, because it provides that if anybody does do this he must take proper steps to give warning. That surely satisfies the condition of public safety. If he does it longer than is necessary he is guilty of the offence of obstructing the highway, and can be summoned under the old Act of 1835. I really think the noble Lord will fail to achieve his object by the Amendments he desires to put in.
EARL HOWE: Is the noble Earl really satisfied that there is sufficient protection for road users in motor cars by the expression "to give adequate warning of the danger "? It seems to me that this is very vague. Would it not be possible definitely to lay it down that the warning sign shall be at not less than a certain distance, or that there shall be some sort of recognised sign, or that there shall be a man stationed on the road? The risk may be very great indeed if the wire is stretched across the road just round a bend, so that it is quite impossible for anybody to see it. I have myself seen ditches dug by public authorities across a highway, and very often they do not trouble to put the red flag at any distance where the warning would be of some use. What they do is just to stick a red flag alongside of it. That is considered by them to be sufficient warning. Could we not strengthen that in some way or other?
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl makes the mistake of thinking that by putting in particular words he strengthens
1542
the clause. He weakens it. The phrase used in the clause is "unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger." What is adequate must depend on the circumstances. No definite or specified distance can be adequate in all circumstances. It may be proper in certain circumstances that the warning should extend round the next corner so that people may be warned. These wider words are much more likely to protect the public.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: The noble Earl said he thought I wished to prevent drawing a wire across a road altogether. It is not in the least my wish. I wish it to be done by the proper authority for the very purpose, as the noble Earl said, of removing trees from the road—which of course must be done. What I wish to do is to restrict it to necessary cases. I do not know who the proper authority is, but the proper authority should restrict it to those cases, and should not allow anybody who likes to stretch a wire across the road and kill people without any penalty whatever—because that is what has happened. I did not speak to my second Amendment at all. The noble Earl did. I suggested that anyone who did not give adequate warning should be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months. I do not know whether that is the right form of the Amendment, but what I suggest is that if a man sets a death trap on the King's highway—for that is what it is—and does not even take the trouble to warn people of the danger, he ought to suffer a greater penalty than a fine not exceeding £20. If your Lordships think that is all right I have nothing more to say.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The particular Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would surely greatly weaken the clause. To insert the words "without proper authority" would mean that with proper authority he was entitled to place a rope in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the road. The question of strengthening the penalty is a different matter.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: I certainly did not want to say anything about fatal accidents. That is a mistake. What I wish to do is to strengthen the

1543
penalty, and I submit that that ought to be done. A fine not exceeding £20 is really derisory.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord press the words "without proper authority "?
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after Clause 47, to insert the following new clause:—
Removal of obstructions.
" . If any obstruction to the running of any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act is caused by the breaking down of or any load falling from any other vehicle, or by the falling of any tree, or by any other thing whatsoever, the owner, the driver or the conductor of such public service vehicle shall be entitled to remove the vehicle, load, tree or thing causing the obstruction and to provide and use all such plant and apparatus and take all such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of removing the obstruction."
The noble Lord said: This is merely an Amendment to enable a driver to remove an unexpected obstruction. I understand that in ordinary circumstances he is not entitled to do it, and would have to wait until the local authority does so.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to know a little more about the meaning and object of this rather remarkable clause. First of all, it is only to apply to a public service vehicle, and not to any other vehicle, and if a man meets an obstruction due to
" the breaking down of or any load falling from any other vehicle, or by the falling of any tree, or by any other thing whatsoever, the owner, the driver or the conductor of such public service vehicle shall be entitled to remove the vehicle, load, tree or thing causing the obstruction and to provide and use all such plant and apparatus…"
As the clause is drawn it would enable a person who was driving an omnibus, and who found even a local authority's notice on the road in its way to take it up and move it, to remove a telegraph linesman's hut, or anything he did not like on the road. He has no obligation even to go round it if it is an obstruction in the place where he usually runs.
1544
So far as it concerns a fallen tree, surely it is already perfectly clear that anybody who finds the road blocked by a fallen tree does not need any authority to remove it. That has been the law for ever so long; at any rate nobody has ever interfered with him. I rather think this clause is one that has been taken from a Tramway Act. In the case of a tram-car running on fixed lines it might be proper that they should be able to remove something which was on their lines, and which they could not get round, but it is quite inapplicable to ordinary traffic on the road, and I have not really understood from the noble Lord what the circumstances are in which he thinks it would be proper.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49:
Power to transfer toll bridges to highway authorities.
(2) Where the right to charge tolls is so transferred the local authority or authorities may continue to exercise the right but for such number of years only as may be allowed by the Minister.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), after "only", to insert "not exceeding five years." The noble Lord said: This is only to fix a time limit.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 12, after ("only") insert ("not exceeding five years").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. Five years might be, and in most cases probably would be, a perfectly reasonable time, but there are some cases where it might be too short a time, and where it might be proper to give them a rather longer time in which to recoup themselves. If you insist on this absolutely hard and fast line it may in some cases prevent local authorities purchasing a toll or ultimately purchasing it, which would be a pity. The Minister hopes that more latitude will be given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved, in subsection (2), to leave out" allowed by the Minister "and insert" prescribed in each case. "The noble Lord said: I suggest this Amendment because I am of

1545
opinion that, power to authorise the extension or curtailment of the collection of tolls should not be vested in the Minister, but should be prescribed in each ease. That would give Parliament some control. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 13, leave out ("allowed by the Minister ") and insert (" prescribed in each case ").—(Lord Auckland.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is a proper and usual thing for the Minister to do; but there is one point in this Amendment which I might accept and that is the insertion in line 13 after the word "Minister" of the words "in each case." It is intended, of course, that the Minister shall consider each case on its own merits. This is clearly a thing for the Minister to settle; he settles much more important matters than this.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Amendment will be moved in the form suggested by the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 13, after (" Minister ") insert (" in each case ").—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Provisions us to extraordinary traffic.
50.—(1) Where as respects any road it appears to the highway authority by a certificate of their surveyor that having regard to the average expense of repairing the road or other similar roads in the neighbourhood extraordinary expenses have been incurred by the authority in repairing the road by reason of the damage caused by excessive weight passing along the road, or other extraordinary traffic thereon, the highway authority may recover from any person (hereinafter referred to as "the undertaker") by or in consequence of whose order the traffic has been conducted the amount of such expenses as may be proved to the satisfaction of the Court having cognizance of the case to have been incurred by the highway authority by reason of the damage arising from the extraordinary traffic:
Provided that if before traffic which may cause such damage commences the undertaker admits liability in respect of such traffic, the undertaker and the highway authority may agree for the payment by the undertaker to the highway authority of a sum by way of a composition of such liability, or either party may require that the sum to be so paid shall be determined by arbitration; and where a sum has been
1546
so agreed or determined as aforesaid the undertaker shall be liable to pay that sum to the highway authority, and shall not be liable to proceedings for the recovery of such expenses as aforesaid.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), after "highway authority," where those words first occur, to insert "or to any company, body or person charged with the maintenance of any portion of a road." The noble Lord said: The importance of this Amendment lies in the words "with this maintenance of any portion of a road." The clause as it stands allows the highway authority, on the certificate of its surveyor, to get back extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of extraordinary traffic. In many cases half the road, or perhaps more, is under the control of a tramway authority who have to run their trams. They may be inconvenienced or more than inconvenienced by extraordinary traffic, but the highway authority will say: "This is not under our jurisdiction and we cannot do anything to help you." They will not move through their surveyor and the tramways company may find it very difficult to get any remedy at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 23, after ("highway authority") insert ("or to any company, body or person charged with the maintenance of any portion of a road").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: The clause as it stands in the Bill is a re-enactment. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would, again, give tramway undertakers the same rights as highway authorities. There is a certain amount of force in the ease he makes that they are liable for the repair of a certain portion of the road and may in fact be damnified by extraordinary traffic, although I am told that the cases in which they have been so damnified are very few. I think one can hardly give them the powers of the local authority in regard to extraordinary traffic, because the provisions that are here re-enacted were all passed after the Tramways Act of 1870 which placed upon them the duty of repairing the centre of the road. It may be that at some time or other all this obligation on tramway authorities may properly be reconsidered. I think the obligation to repair the road may very possibly be reconsidered at some time or other But in my opinion it

1547
would be going contrary to the principle of the tramway enactments to give these undertakers the powers of the local authority as regards extraordinary traffic, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I understand the noble Earl to suggest that if a remedy was desired against excessive weight or extraordinary traffic it would have to come in a separate Act or some amendment of the Tramways Act. There is no doubt that since 1870 a very great change has taken place in the kind and weight of traffic that goes over the roads. However, if the noble Earl says that it is not cognate to the purpose of this Bill I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Fortescue gave notice of a manuscript Amendment in line 6, on page 38. I do not know whether that is being moved.
EARL FORTESCUE: No.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, after subsection (2), to insert:—
"Notwithstanding anything in this section, no claim shall be made by any highway authority under this section in respect of the user of any highway by any stage carriage or express carriage (within the meaning of Part IV of this Act) for the purposes of any regular service run by the owner of the stage carriage or express carriage in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioners (as defined in Part IV of this Act) or for the purposes of any other requirement of the Commissioners or of any local authority."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment arises out of the extraordinary traffic clause and I should like the noble Earl to consider it. One knows the ordinary provisions of the law regarding extraordinary traffic and the liability to extraordinary traffic. But under the next Part of the Bill we are erecting or proposing to erect Road Commissioners who will decide what services shall be run on the road, and their frequency, as well as the weight and construction of the carriages and so forth. I suppose that the Road Commissioners will take into consideration all the points as to the weight of vehicles and the impact of vehicles on the road before giving a certificate to enable services to be run. The object of this Amendment is to suggest to the noble Earl that the Commissioners
1548
should in effect have the necessary responsibility of deciding in regard to the public services which they authorise, whether they be public services by a local authority or services by a private company, the question of extraordinary traffic. As the noble Earl knows the question of extraordinary traffic is a very difficult one indeed and there are constant fights in the law courts about it.
It would be a very great convenience both to road authorities and to the owners of public vehicles if, before a licence was granted to run new services, the Commissioners, who are the responsible parties from henceforth—there has been nobody in their position before—inspected the roads, as I have no doubt they will, before new services were authorised. If they decide that in all the circumstances of the case a new service shall be run at certain times, with a particular frequency and so on, because they will have the power to decide what the frequency shall be, they will have power to say to the undertakers: "You shall not have a licence to run this service unless you run so many vehicles at such and such intervals in order to meet the requirements of the people of the locality." If the Commissioners put upon the undertakers a responsibility of that kind, I think in return they should be freed from the necessity of dealing with cases of extraordinary traffic. The noble Earl knows that cases of extraordinary traffic do not occur, as a matter of fact, on main roads. These services would be run on main roads, roads leading in and out of the town, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town. I would ask him, therefore, to consider this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: Extraordinary traffic is, of course, really an anachronism. It has gone out of date now, as I think the noble Viscount will agree.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Practically.
EARL RUSSELL: There are very few cases in which you can properly claim for extraordinary traffic, and the circumstances which gave rise to the original provisions in the Acts hardly apply. The noble Viscount's Amendment, as I am

1549
sure he feels himself, presents a good deal of difficulty. It seems to me that it would go as far, I do not know whether he intended it to go as far, as to negative what are called adaptation clauses which have been put into Private Bills from time to time. I do not know whether that is his intention, but I think it would be rather a strong measure, without an inquiry similar to that which imposed them, to cancel the adaptation clauses recently put into Private Bills by Parliament. I should like to consider that before thinking it was even a proper thing to do. I cannot think that claims for extraordinary traffic are very likely to arise. Nowadays the matter surely is more a theoretical than a practical one. I am perfectly willing to consider what the noble Viscount is aiming at here; but I doubt whether anything can properly be done. I do not like the idea of giving the Traffic Commissioners power really to prevent a local authority from claiming something which, under the existing law, would be justly due to them, however out of date that existing law is.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it. I agree with him that extraordinary traffic is dying out.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: At the same time one does not want claims of this kind if they can be avoided. I will withdraw my Amendment if the noble Earl will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, after subsection (2), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the carriage of timber from any plantation, provided that it shall be incumbent upon the undertaker to take every reasonable precaution against causing any avoidable damage to the road."
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Lovat asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to see the justice of the Amendment. In the case of extraordinary traffic, where you have parts of buildings, or electrical machinery, or any heavy traffic along the road, and where extraordinary damage is done, I think it
1550
is justifiable that the local authorities should receive the additional expense incurred over and above the ordinary expense of keeping up the road, but in the case of timber being removed from plantations a very different case occurs. Plantations have been paying rates over a large number of years, sometimes up to fifty, sixty, ninety and 100 years according to the age of the timber which is being removed. It does not seem fair, when that timber is removed, if there is a little additional damage to the roads, that the undertaker of that timber should be mulcted in special and additional cost. I ask the noble Earl to consider this Amendment from that point of view, and see whether it is not possible to do justice in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Elibank.)
EARL RUSSELL: When I read the noble Viscount's Amendment it seemed to me at first that if there was a case where it was a reasonable thing to claim in respect of extraordinary traffic when the whole road had been cut up, that case was timber carrying. There seemed to me to be more justification there than there is in many other cases for saying that was extraordinary traffic, and that it ought to pay the special damage it had done. I am bound to say, however, I am very much struck by the ingenious suggestion of the noble Viscount that during the eighty years, or more that the timber has been growing the timber has, so to speak, been accruing a right to injure the highway and suddenly does the whole injury in one swoop. That seems to me rather an attractive argument. I should like to fall in with the idea if I could, but I do not think I must. I do think where somebody is moving timber upon a public road and causing special damage he must pay for it, if the damage is caused by excessive loads and possibly by hauling at an improper time. After all, he is making a profit out of it, even if in these days it is a small profit. I think it is not legitimate that the inhabitants who are now paying rates should pay for it. If the timber owner has paid rates, he has not only had the use of these highways but he has also been able to get to his timber and look at it and has had the general use of the roads. I am sorry I cannot

1551
accept this, because I think there are many other cases which might be put on all fours, such as quarries.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the class of road which this timber is carried upon is usually a poor kind of road, certainly it is so in many parts of Scotland. In the Highlands and other parts, these plantations are situate on what are called unclassified roads. Most of those roads are already in a very bad condition indeed. It is extremely difficult to say how far these roads would be further injured by the carriage of this timber. The noble Earl says my argument is an ingenious one. I do not think he has really answered it. The actual approach to these plantations is usually by people on foot, and not by people in motor cars or any horse-drawn vehicle. Therefore the actual approach to these plantations during these many years has not been by individuals who damage the road, and the timber itself has not caused any damage to the road until it is actually carted away. I am sorry the noble Earl is not able to accept this Amendment. Perhaps he might see his way to consider reducing the rates on timber.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after Clause 51, to insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
".—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control.
(2) Before sanctioning any works for the widening or improvement of any existing road or for the making of any new road, a highway authority shall consider whether it would be possible and desirable to include footpaths in such works and if so, shall not sanction such works unless such footpaths are included.
(3) If the provision of footpaths is not proposed as part of such works no advance shall be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of such works unless the Minister is satisfied that such footpaths are not possible and desirable."
The noble Viscount said: This is a point I ventured to raise in the debate on the Second Reading, and it is, I am quite satisfied your Lordships will agree
1552
with me, a very serious matter, particularly in some of the country districts. There is no doubt that the lack of footpaths is serious, particularly for children going to school, where they are compelled by law to go over these main roads. You see considerable improvements being carried on in order to make the roads fit for traffic, and it is extremely hard that the interests of the pedestrians who are compelled to use them, whether they like it or not, should not also be considered. I know that my noble friend rather suggested in his speech on the Second Reading that there was no necessity for any further provision, that the law was already sufficient.
I must admit that it is very difficult, unless you are an expert in that branch of the law, to be quite certain what is the highway law of this country, but I did take some pains to ascertain it, and I could not find—I dare say it was owing to my ignorance and stupidity—any provision which put upon the local authority any duty to provide footpaths. What they have to do is to provide highways. There are a variety of duties laid upon them in that respect, but there is no substantial duty that I can find, even where it is necessary and desirable, for the highway authority to provide foot paths. They can do so, because they can treat it as part of the highway, and can make a part of the highway into a footpath. That is the law as I understand it, but I may be wrong. It seems to me it would be a good thing when we are reviewing this question of traffic on roads, to have it distinctly laid down in an Act of Parliament as part of the duty of the highway authority to consider whether a footpath is not necessary, particularly when they are carrying out any widening or improvement of the highway.
That is what I suggest in the first subsection:—
" It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control."
Then I suggest—this I am afraid my noble friend will not regard with much enthusiasm—that it might be a good plan for the Road Fund to use more vigorously than as far as I can learn it does at present, its power when asked for assistance for a road widening or improvement

1553
—it is not so much a question of new roads—and say to the local authority: "Well, really, have you considered this question of the footpath? If there is any doubt we would like to send somebody down to look at it. It really is a serious matter. If the road traffic is so great as to require a widening, which we are going to assist you in meeting, you ought to spend some of that money in making a new footpath." I think that is a matter with which motorists would be quite as much in favour as pedestrians. It is one of the many occasions on which our interests are identical.
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Viscount compels them to walk on the footpath.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I understand that is going to be part of the provisions of the highway code. I look with some anxiety as to what will be the fate of the pedestrian when the highway code is enacted. But it would be proper to have a provision of that kind. It is something to have the footpaths, and as far as the children are concerned they are continually being warned by their parents, and now by schoolmasters, to take great precautions, and I think they would use footpaths if really good footpaths were provided for them. Sometimes you see a footpath at the side of the road which it is really a very difficult thing to walk on. It is so badly paved and so wet in bad weather that really it is an invitation to go on to the road. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but hope you will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 35, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I hope this Amendment will be accepted because the fact that there is a footpath is an invitation to walk on the footpath. Many of those who are deaf, like myself, are compelled to walk on the side of the road facing the traffic in order to see what is coming and we are told that is the wrong side on which to walk. If you give us a footpath, we will walk on the footpath, though we know we have as much right on the road as the motorist.
EARL HOWE: I would like to support the Amendment. I do not know that I can support it in every detail because I
1554
do not know how far it goes. I do not know if it is designed to deal with all classes of roads. It would not be reasonable to compel local authorities to construct footpaths on Class 2 and Class 3 roads.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Only where desirable.
EARL HOWE: It would be very desirable on certain classes of roads. As to the expense, I heard with some misgivings a reference to the Road Fund. At the same time, if the Minister in giving grants can secure the provision of footpaths with a suitable surface—because there are many cases all round London where pedestrians refuse to use the footpath because of the state of the surface which is either rough or sloping—I am entirely in favour of it.
EARL RUSSELL: For some extraordinary reason, as the noble Lords have said, a local authority nearly always makes a foothpath so disagreeable that people will not walk upon it. I do not know what the reason is and I think some improvement could be achieved by the Ministry of Transport with the influence they now have with the local authorities. I agree that it is most desirable that footpaths should be provided. If they were provided and pedestrians habitually walked on them, it would do a great deal to avoid accidents, particularly in narrow and winding roads. I do not think the Amendment will do as it is put down here. It begins by saying it will be the duty of the highway authority to provide footpaths wherever necessary or desirable. Who is to be the judge? Is the local authority to be the judge?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL: Well, that is not clear. If it is not the local authority, then the local authority would be exposed to being condemned for a breach of duty for not providing footpaths when someone else thought they were necessary and desirable. The noble Viscount must also have regard to the fact that roads are nowadays classified. There are Class 1 roads, to which the Ministry of Transport contributes 60 per cent. of the cost of maintenance, and Class 2 roads to which they contribute

1555
50 per cent. Probably, though I could not say off-hand, these grants apply equally to the footpaths at the sides of the roads. So it is perfectly obvious that the Ministry of Transport can exercise a fairly considerable influence on the local authorities in this manner. On the second branch of the Amendment, I told him, and I believe it to be true, that in any widening of importance and on any new road footpaths are provided.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not in all new widenings.
EARL RUSSELL: I may be mistaken but that is my impression. Even so, I am not certain that they are always sufficiently attractive to make them useful. As to the third part, it provides that no advance shall be made from the Load Fund unless the Minister is satisfied that footpaths are not reasonable or desirable. Those who administer it will be glad of any excuse to save a portion of it because the demands on it are much greater than can be fulfilled; but I think this would be rather difficult. If the noble Viscount will allow us to consider what can be done in the matter, I think that possibly some declaratory clause making fairly clear the class of roads to which it applies, and some words of more certain definition than these and some linking up with grants from the Ministry may achieve the object he has in view. These words will not do. I would be very glad if he will consult me before Report stage as to whether anything to this end can be achieved. We all recognise that footpaths make both for the safety of pedestrians and the advantage of motorists by taking pedestrians off the road. We would all be glad to see footpaths provided.
LORD DANESFORT: In this connection, will the noble Earl consider the possibility of providing some place at the side of the slippery roads where a horse can travel without danger to itself or its rider? I speak with considerable feeling because I have had two or three falls from riding on roads which, however suitable for motors, are exceedingly unsuitable for a man riding a horse when the roads are slippery. After a little rain these roads are almost impassable for horses. Thank goodness horses do go on roads still. They go to meets and
1556
on other occasions. Unfortunately, my experience is that, when roads are widened, the grass on which we used to ride is either taken away or covered with litter and débris of various sorts so that it is impossible to ride upon it. I do not know if this point is germane to this Amendment, but if the noble Earl is thinking of making a footpath for pedestrians he might make one for horses.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged for the way in which the noble Earl has received this Amendment, and of course I am ready to withdraw it. May I give two instances of the kind of thing I have in mind? In Sussex, where I live, there has been a great improvement at a curve by erecting a bank to prevent motorists going over the curve. The top of that bank is a yard wide and more or less flat but it has not been made into a path at all. That is the sort of thing that seems so foolish as a great opportunity was lost there of making a footpath. Similarly, in the Lake country, where I was recently, I observed great works being carried out on a road making it straighter and widening it considerably, but no footpath was provided, although it was a place where there is much foot-passenger traffic. Those are cases which any member of your Lordships' House can multiply indefinitely all over the country. It seems to me that something should be done. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I trust the Ministry of Transport will be asked to draft a suitable clause.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to give the noble Viscount the assurance that, so far as anything can be done by administrative action in advance of any clause of this kind, I will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Regulations]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
" (3) Before making regulations under this Part of this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. The reason why it is moved is that the motor organisations consider that Part III covers some very essential portions of this Bill. It

1557
includes the erection of notice boards and signs, the Ministry's code of the highway, and all sorts of matters like penalties for neglect of driving directions and so on. The motoring organisations are anxious to do everything in their power to help the Minister and therefore I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe).
EARL RUSSELL: These regulations under Part II are quite different to the previous regulations and it is not really necessary that these organisations should be consulted in regard to the making of them. I think the noble Earl is wrong as to some of the things he said were included, such things as notice boards. Since the Minister will consult, as he has always consulted, representative organisations—and, as I believe the noble Earl is in touch with motoring organisations, he probably knows that at this moment the Minister is consulting them—I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
EARL HOWE: After what the noble Earl has said I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Application of Part IV and classification of public service vehicles.
54.—(1) This Part of this Act applies to public service vehicles; that is to say, motor vehicles (other than tramcars and trolley vehicles) used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, except that it shall not apply to contract carriages as hereinafter defined adapted to carry loss than nine passengers.
(2) Public service vehicles shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and the regulations made thereunder, be divided into the following classes:—

(a) Stage carriages; that is to say, motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares (any or all of which are less than sixpence or such greater sum as may be prescribed), stage by stage, and stopping to pick up or set down passengers along the line of route, and any other motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and not being express carriages as hereinafter defined:

1558

(b) Express carriages; that is to say, motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and for a journey or journeys to some one or other common destination specified beforehand, and not stopping to take up or set down passengers other than those taking the specified journey or journeys, and motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, where no fare is less than sixpence or such greater sum as may be prescribed:

Provided that a motor vehicle adapted to carry less than six passengers shall not be deemed to be an express carriage by reason only that on special occasions it is used to carry passengers at separate fares.
(3) Where a person uses or allows to be used without reward for carrying nine or more persons as passengers any motor vehicle ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture, trade or business, then, except where the persons so carried are workpeople in his employment being carried in the course of or to or from their employment, the vehicle shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act he treated as if it was a contract carriage, and the provisions of this Part of this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall apply accordingly.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "nine." and insert "seven." The noble Lord said: This section deals with the classification of public service vehicles and my Amendment concerns what I venture to call unfair competition. The Committee is probably aware that at the present moment large numbers of private vehicles are used for public service purposes. The ordinary large motor car seats six people besides the driver and this sort of vehicle is constantly used when favourable opportunity arises for public service. It stands to reason that these private vehicles are in an extremely favourable position as compared with the legitimate public service vehicle and if they are employed on public service it seems to me only reasonable that they should come under the same regulations as genuine public service vehicles. With that object I move that the number "nine" should be reduced to "seven."
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("nine") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite know why a vehicle should not be legitimately used because it happens to be smaller than the large omnibus. In the provinces as the noble Lord said old

1559
Daimlers and large old cars of that sort when they have long passed their first youth are used as taxicabs and for the conveyance of passengers. They carry seven at least. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord to this extent—which I hope will satisfy him—that I would agree to insert "eight" instead of "nine," but we cannot disqualify this class of vehicle from carrying passengers and not being treated as an omnibus.
LORD NEWTON: I will accept the noble Lord's offer and move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "shilling" for "sixpence" in subsection (2) (a). The noble Lord said: I do not move this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: But I am prepared to accept a shilling there. I hope Lord Askwith will move.
LORD ASKWITH: I shall be delighted, if I am allowed, to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice of an Amendment in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after the first "journeys," to insert "from one or more points specified beforehand in a particular town or place. "The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next three Amendments which I have placed on the Paper all hang together, and I have an idea that the noble Earl is in communication with the people concerned in this particular matter. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I did not move the Amendment if he would undertake to consider the point and bring up an amended clause on Report.
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid I cannot undertake to bring up an amended clause, but I will consider any representation made to me. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to define an express carriage in such a way that a
1560
coach running from Newcastle to London would not be an express carriage if passengers were picked up at any intermediate point at all. I do not think the noble Lord could have intended that.
LORD NEWTON: The object is to distinguish between what are called stage coaches, that is to say omnibuses, and motor coaches. The remark which I made in moving my previous Amendment applies in this case also. There is unfair competition, because motor coaches have now developed into omnibuses running short journeys and picking up people, although they are not subject to the same control as the legitimate omnibus. My object is to define more clearly the difference between the two classes of vehicle. Do I understand the noble Earl will consider the matter?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I will consider any representations made, but I am afraid I am not quite clear what the point is.
LORD NEWTON: Then I will not move my Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "sixpence" and insert "one shilling." The noble Lord said: This is the sixpence that I really want changed into a shilling if possible. The point is that there may be a line of tramcars or trolley vehicles running from A to B at a statutory fare of 8d. or 9d., and they can be cut into by a private vehicle or express carriage charging a fare of 6d. or even 4d., which is rather unreasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling").—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I would rather accept the words of an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Newton—"one shilling for a single journey." I do not know whether that would satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I will accept that now and if it is not quite satisfactory I will raise the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 31, leave out ("sixpence") and insert ("one shilling for a single journey").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move in subsection (3) to leave out "nine" and insert "seven." The noble Lord said: La view of what was done on my previous Amendment I am willing to take "eight."
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Traffic Commissioners]:
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after subsection (3), to insert:—
" Provided that no person who shall be or become interested in the operation of public service vehicles in any traffic area either as a director of, or holder of any securities in, any company, or as a member of any authority or body, for the time being operating or having power to operate any public service vehicle within that area shall be capable of acting as a Commissioner for that area."
The noble Lord said: I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord has not said anything about this Amendment but as it is worded the effect would be—I do not know whether it is the noble Lord's intention—to exclude members of a town council which was running omnibuses from being on the panel from which the Minister is to select the two local persons who are to act as Commissioners. I am afraid we cannot accept that. To speak of persons who have a direct pecuniary interest is one thing, but persons who are members of an authority and are interested in providing services are in another case. In busy and populous towns this would include practically every town council. The Minister is going to appoint Commissioners, and it is obvious that he would not appoint anyone who was interested, if he could learn about it. If the noble Lord desires to move the Amendment later in an amended form, so as to prevent any person acting who has a real financial interest, I should be perfectly willing to consider it if he thinks
1562
it necessary, but it is obvious that the Minister will take great care not to have any person who has any financial interest or even who has taken a strong line in public as to the running or not running of public service vehicles.
LORD NEWTON: I will bring the point up again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57:
Procedure of Traffic Commissioners.
(2) Not less than two Commissioners shall be present at the hearing of any application, and if where an application is heard by two Commissioners only there is a difference of opinion between them, the matter shall be determined by the decision of the third Commissioner.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), after "Not less than two Commissioners" to insert "one of whom must be the Chairman or the person for the time being acting as deputy to the Chairman." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved because, as I under-stand it, the Chairman is appointed by the Ministry of Transport, and therefore he is in a different position from that of the other persons, who represent the local authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 18, after ("Commissioners") insert ("one of whom must be the Chairman or the person for the time being acting as deputy to the Chairman").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: All the Commissioners are appointed by the Ministry of Transport, but the clear and definite intention, in order that there may be no mistake about local representation on the Commission and in order that local authorities may be satisfied that they are properly represented, is that, if ever there is a difference of opinion, the two other Commissioners shall be able to out-vote the Chairman. It is not intended to make the Chairman master of the whole situation whatever the other people may think. What we are hoping will happen in practice—and there is some warrant for that hope in the experience of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, which includes many more

1563
people and more diverse interests than these Commissioners, appointed for this particular purpose, will include—is that there will never be any difference of opinion, but that there will be a general continuous policy, and in all probability there will never be any occasion to take a vote. I do not think we can accept this Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60:
Public service vehicle licences.
(2) If any person causes or permits a public service vehicle to be used in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that where in the case of a service of stage carriages no fare is less than threepence or such greater sum as may be prescribed, it shall not be an offence to use on that service a vehicle licensed as an express carriage if consent in writing to such use has been obtained from the Commissioners of each of the traffic areas in which the vehicle is so used.
EARL RUSSELL: I have three drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of")
Page 44, line 5, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of")
>Page 44, line 8, leave out ("has obtained") and insert ("is the holder of").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out "three-pence" and to insert "one shilling for a single journey." The noble Lord said: I think this is consequential. It has been settled.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("three-pence") and insert ("one shilling for a single journey").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord is mistaken in thinking that this is consequential. These are established services, run with vehicles of the express type, which pick up and set down passengers only at intervals. With a minimum fare of threepence it might be a hardship on
1564
the persons who operated them to compel them to change their vehicles. The fact that they have to obtain the consent of the Commissioners is sufficient guarantee against any abuse and, as a matter of fact, the Amendment would make the proviso rather meaningless. There would be a contradiction in terms. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. When he reconsiders it, he will find that it is by no means the same as the other one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61:
Certificates of fitness.
61—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section relating to vehicles in respect of which a licence to ply for hire has been granted before the commencement of this Act, a licence to use a vehicle adapted to carry nine or more passengers as a stage carriage express carriage or contract carriage shall not be granted unless a certificate (hereinafter referred to as a certificate of fitness) has been issued by a certifying officer that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the vehicle and such a certificate is in force in respect of the vehicle:
Provided that the Minister may by regulations extend the provisions of this subsection to stage carriages and express carriages adapted to carry eight passengers or any smaller number of passengers specified in the regulations.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "nine" and to insert "seven." The noble. Lord said: I propose to move this in the form acceptable to the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "eight" and to insert "six." The noble Lord said: Does the noble Earl accept this?
EARL RUSSELL: I accept it if "seven" is substituted for "six."
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("eight") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62:
Road Service Licences.
(2) Every person applying for a road service licence or applying for the backing of such a licence shall submit to the Commissioners—

(a) in the case of regular services, the time tables of the services which it is proposed to provide under the licence; and

(b) in any other case, particulars as to the frequency of the services and The Times to be taken on the journeys included in these services;

and the Commissioners shall not grant the licence unless they are satisfied that the time tables and other arrangements are such as to secure that suitable services will be established and maintained, and that the provisions of Part I of this Act relating to the maximum speed of vehicles will not be contravened.
(7) A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order:
Provided that notwithstanding any restriction to the contrary, whether contained in this Act or in any other Act or in any order having the force of an Act or elsewhere, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant a road service licence in respect of any route or any part of a route to any person applying for such a licence, and it shall be lawful for that person to operate a service in accordance with the licence so granted to him.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "tables," to insert "and fare tables." The noble Earl said: This is a necessary addition.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 20, after ("tables") insert ("and fare tables").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (2) all words after "case" and to insert "particulars of the purposes for which and the conditions under which the vehicle, in respect of which application for or the backing of a road service licence is made, is to be used." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment stands in my name in addition to that
1566
of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. As I am somewhat weak-willed, the noble Lord approached me last night and asked me to allow him to put down my name to his Amendments. I consented on condition that I got a proper brief. I have only just received that brief, and I am afraid I cannot make much of it. The case is this. The present wording of paragraph (b) does not seem to be particularly apt and the wording proposed submits an alternative which, it is suggested, would be more effective and more applicable. It is presumed that paragraph (b) is aimed at motor coaches which do not provide a regular service but which run trips and excursions at irregular times, so that it would be inaccurate to say that they provide a service of any frequency at all. Under paragraph (a) those providing regular services are required not only to submit their time-tables but their fare tables, following the Amendment of the noble Earl, and in order to prevent abuses, corresponding clauses should be sought for those running motor coach services. The wording of the Amendment is accordingly framed more widely, so that full particulars of the purposes for which, and the conditions under which, the vehicle is to be used may be ascertained by the Commissioners.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 23, leave out from ("case") to the end of line 25 and insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think this Amendment would be undesirable and really unnecessary. Under Clause 71 the Minister has power to prescribe what particulars applicants for licences are to furnish. We do not want to define them too rigidly, because we might want to prescribe other things that the noble Lord has not mentioned. The reason for putting in the time-tables and fare tables is their special importance. Any other information that is relevant can be obtained from the persons who apply for licences or can be prescribed by the Minister, so that I do not think the Amendment is necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment so that, possibly on Report, somebody better versed in the subject may be able to move it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 27, after ("tables") insert ("and the fare tables").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 32, after ("table") insert ("and of every fare table").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITHmoved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"( ) The Commissioners on receiving any application for or for the backing of a read service licence shall

(a) exhibit a notice of the application at their head office and keep such notice so exhibited until the application is heard, and

(b) publish notice of the application in one or more local newspapers circulating in their traffic area

and such application shall not be heard prior to the expiration of fourteen days after such notice has been so exhibited and published."
The noble Lord said: I suggest that it is a reasonable proposition that notice should be given and should be exhibited and published a little time beforehand in the daily papers.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith).
EARL RUSSELL: This again is unnecessary. Under Clause 71 the Minister has ample power to prescribe by regulation the way in which all these things shall be done, and I have little doubt that there will be detailed regulations with far more than is provided here. Those may very well be subject to change. We do not want to have them in a fixed form because it may be found that one form is better than another.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after subsection (6), to insert as a new subsection:—
"( ) In relation to the granting of road service licences in respect of any route in the City of Oxford the Commissioners shall be bound by and shall observe the restrictions, provisions and conditions contained in the Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Oxford and District Tramways Act,
1568
1914, as amended by the Oxford Motor Services Act, 1921, and the Agreement set forth in the Fourth Schedule to the Oxford Extension Act, 1928."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment concerns the City of Oxford, and I have been asked to put it down as an Amendment to the Bill. In the City of Oxford the undertakers are in a very peculiar position, because owing to an arrangement which has extended over a period of something like twenty-two years, they have a monopoly of the services. To obtain this monopoly they have paid certain sums of money, and there is a possibility that under this Bill the rights which they have acquired can be taken from them. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been good enough to correspond with me on this particular subject, and he has made a special point that he thinks it unwise that competition should be curtailed in this way; but I am given to understand that by reason of there being no competition it is possible for the undertakers, not having to cut their prices, to run a much better service for the outlying districts than would be possible under another system. That is a minor matter. I venture to ask the noble Earl if he can further consider this measure. It seems to me to be one of considerable importance, because after all Parliament has given sanction to the arrangement which has been come to, and by the action of the Commissioners it may be possible to override an arrangement to which everybody has agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 2, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Marquess will not complain, I am sure, when I say that we have had such very short notice of the Amendment that I have hardly had time to go fully into it. I confess that personally I know little about the rights and wrongs of the matter. The case seems to be a very peculiar one, and I do not know how it ought to be dealt with, but I think it ought to be looked into, and it shall be looked into.
THE LORD CHAIEMAN: Perhaps I ought to say a word upon this, because it is a very peculiar matter and I remember its being before the House some years ago. I think I am not being indiscreet in saying that this was part of

1569
a special bargain by which Oxford got rid of the trams. The trams had a monopoly, and the omnibuses which took their place were given a monopoly. Since then one or two other towns have claimed the same right, on the ground that they were like Oxford, and I have invariably rejected their claim.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much obliged to the Lord Chairman for his statement, because any information one can get with regard to this bargain, and how it was arrived at, will be useful in determining what arrangement should be made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out all words preceding the proviso after "Parliament." The noble Lord said: Why should a particular licence be given to one set of people and not to another?
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 7, leave out from ("Parliament") to the end of line 10.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: The joint effect of this and the next following Amendment would be that so far as Local Acts are concerned the Comimissioners would have to have regard only to those by which special protection or a quasi monopoly is conferred on a particular undertaking. The intention of the subsection is that the Commissioners shall not be able to refuse the licences necessary to enable a service authorised by Statute to be run, but should not necessarily be precluded from granting licences to other operators to run on the same route if this course is desirable in the public interest. You want to save the statutory rights, and not to prevent competition if it is proper there should be competition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 22, leave out from ("police") to ("and") in line 23, and insert ("and every local authority in whose district or area the service is to be operated").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTONmoved to insert the following new subsection:—
1570
"( ) Notwithstanding anything in this section it shall be lawful for a person who is the holder of a road service licence issued under this Part of this Act by the Commissioners of any traffic area to run the stage carriage or express carriage to which the licence relates through any other traffic area without the licence having been backed by the Commissioners for the other traffic area if and so long as the carriage is not used for the taking up or setting down of passengers within such other traffic area."
The noble Lord said: As Clause 62 is at present drawn, a proprietor of a stage carriage or an express carriage running such vehicle from, say, London to Scotland, would be compelled to secure, before he could undertake this work, road service licences for all the traffic areas through which he passes, even though he were not undertaking the work of dealing with the passenger traffic of such areas, and it is submitted that following the present practice, where a vehicle neither picks up nor sets down passengers in a licensing area, it should not require a licence in respect of that area. The only object served under the Pill by a licence in respect of through transit would be to enable the Traffic Commissioners to prescribe the route to be followed, but it is thought that it might be assumed that in respect of through transit, only first-class or important second-class roads would be employed, and to set up machinery to secure control in respect of such a minor matter would seem both unnecessary and costly, and a cause of delay.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: For the purpose of a through route all the vehicle requires to do is to get a licence backed by the other Commissioners through whose area it goes. I do not think we can possibly say that the area Commissioners have no interest in a vehicle running through their areas simply because it does not take up or set down passengers. One of the great functions of the Commissioners is going to be to regulate the general traffic of the country. I do not think I can accept the Amendment that these vehicles should be entirely free from control simply because they do not happen to take up or set down passengers in that area. There might be any number of them congesting the streets, and, although it might be assumed that they

1571
were going over the main road, that is by no means necessary. They might go by a road that is not desirable. I am afraid we must retain the control of the Commissioners over this through traffic.
LORD NEWTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.]
Clause 63:
Drivers' and conductors' licences.
(3) A licence to drive a public service vehicle may be limited to such type or types of vehicles as may be specified in the licence.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: The suggestion is that it should not be necessary to limit licences to drive a particular type or types of vehicle. I can understand when invalid carriages are limited; but once it is a motor of a certain weight in proportion I do not think the limit is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think that this is really necessary in the interests of public safety. There are some quite light types of public service vehicles, and the man who has only had experience in driving those might be rather dangerous in charge of a char-a-bancs holding forty or fifty people, if he had not had a little more training. I think on the whole it would be wise to retain that if your Lordships have no objection. It is in the interests of public safety.
EARL HOWE: May I conclude from the noble Earl's remarks that he now looks with more favour upon training for driving?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Duration of licences]:
EARL RUSSELL: These are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 33, leave out ("suspended or revoked in the meantime") and insert ("previously revoked")
Page 50, line 7, leave out from ("to") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("one or more particular periods or occasions").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to the clause:—
" (3) Where a licence under this Part of this Act is suspended under the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall during the time of suspension be of no effect."
The noble Earl said: I might explain that the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that when a public service vehicle or road service licence or any other licence under this Part has been suspended, it shall be of no effect during the time of suspension.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 8, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Duty to give notice of failure, damage and alteration.
67—(1) It shall be the duty of a driver of a public service vehicle on the happening to the vehicle of any failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road, forthwith to report the matter to the Commissioners for the traffic area in which the failure or damage happened.
EARL RUSSELL: The first three Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 28, leave out ("a driver") and insert ("the holder")
Page 50, line 29, after the first ("vehicle") insert ("licence")
Page 50, line 29, after the second ("vehicle") insert ("in respect of which the licence was granted").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road" and to insert "accident of any such class or classes as

1573
may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Part of this Act." The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Newton has again prevailed upon me to move this Amendment in his stead. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already introduced Amendments to Clause 67 to remove the duty from the driver to the holder of the licence in respect of the vehicle, so that the major objection to this clause is now met. At the same time, the duty is in respect of any happening to a vehicle Involving failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers or of persons using the road, and the words are of such a general character that it must be assumed that practically all accidents are to be reported to the Traffic Commissioners. Unless the accidents are to be more closely defined there will be a tendency for the number of accidents reported to be extended from time to time. There is no desire to withhold from the Traffic Commissioners particulars of any accident in respect of which they can take useful action, but it is thought that the definition in the clause should be narrowed. The Amendment suggests that it should be left to the Minister by regulation to prescribe the class or classes of accidents to be reported. It will be observed that failure to report involves the commission of an offence, and it would be unfair to attach a penalty to the non-observance of a regulation which is so vague and uncertain in form as subsection (1) of Clause 61.
Amendment moved.—
Page 50, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The Amendment of the noble Viscount would still leave it to the Minister to prescribe what class or classes of accidents should be reported, and I am not sure what he could say better than the words in the clause itself, which are that they are of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the passengers. He could not possibly go detail by detail over each part of the mechanism, and say the failure of this part or the other part is to be reported. I think these general words give the effect that is required very match better than any special words the Minister could devise. The man is a competent driver and knows perfectly
1574
well what sort of accident is serious, what accident is worth reporting and what is not. I do not think there will be any difficulty in finding the proper one to report. It is obvious no prosecution would ever follow unless there had been some definite wrongdoing on his part and some attempt to conceal the accident.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: From what the noble Earl has said does it not leave a, loop-hole for the driver not to report a serious accident?
EARL RUSSELL: There must be common sense about these matters. In a sense you cannot call it an accident if a tyre came off. No sane driver would think of reporting that to anybody, except to his master if he had to use a new one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 32, leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("as soon as may be").—(Ban Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68:
Suspension of vehicle licences for defects.
68.—(1) If on the inspection of a public service vehicle it appears to a public, service vehicles examiner that the vehicle, owing to any defects therein, is or is likely to become unfit for service until the defects have been remedied, he may suspend the public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle:
EARL RUSSELL: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 2, leave out ("vehicles") and insert ("vehicle").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "unfit for service" and insert "unsafe for use." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because from the wording of the Bill it seems rather hard that a vehicle should be suspended for such general reasons. Surely, if it is only a question of a minor defect, it ought to be sufficient if some representation is made to the owner to give him a chance of putting it right. If a vehicle is suspended, I know it is very

1575
difficult to get the suspension removed, and in case of an appeal the company are all the time losing the money which the vehicle ought to be earning. I submit that if the words I propose are adopted it would be clear that the power of suspension would only be used where it is necessary to protect the public from the risk of injury. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment because the Omnibus Owners' Association looks upon it as a most important Amendment. If he cannot accept it, will he consider it between now and Report stage?
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 4, leave out ("unfit for service") and insert ("unsafe for use").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: The words suggested in the Amendment are not appropriate as compared with those in the Bill. If your Lordships can imagine a London General omnibus—of course it would not happen in London—or any other omnibus which was perfectly safe for use but had the tops of several windows broken, I should not call that vehicle fit for service at this time of the year. It is not by any means a question of being safe. These are passenger vehicles and they have to be up to a certain standard of decency and comfort to make them fit for use. The proviso says:—
"Provided that where in the opinion of such examiner the defects are such as can be remedied within forty-eight hours, and are not defects which involve danger to the public, the suspension shall not operate before the expiration of forty-eight hours, nor shall it operate after the expiration of that time if the licensee before the expiration of that time furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the examiner that the defects have been or are in the course of being remedied."
Supposing the examiner sees an omnibus with two or three broken windows and says, "You cannot go on running your omnibus in this weather like that" and gives the owner notice of suspension, and the man says, "I will have them mended when the omnibus comes home to-night," then the suspension will not operate. The words "unsafe for use" are too limited in the circumstances of the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Appeals to the Minister]:
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"( ) Where a person providing transport facilities has appealed to the Minister under this section against the grant or backing of a road service licence or any condition attached thereto, the licence or the backing of the licence shall not come into force until the appeal has been disposed of."
The noble Lord said: I do not want to stop the spate of apparently immaculate clauses, but there is a point here on the question of appeal. You do not want a kind of in-and-out owing to an appeal. The delay is in the decision which rests on the Minister and not in the appeal.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know if the noble Lord has fully considered the effect of this Amendment. It would really be unreasonable in practice. This-is a subsection which deals with an applicant for a new licence who on the date of his application is the holder of a licence and who appeals on the ground that his application has been refused. His licence can then continue in force until the appeal has been disposed of. If you do not provide that, it will be obvious that a man with an established service which has been running for the past year can be stopped by some appeal against the grant of a licence to him by a competitor and his service would thus be upset although in the end he got his licence. I do not think the noble Lord intends that. Even if it were limited to new services it would not be necessary because a person is not likely to start a new service until the appeal about his licence has been disposed of.
LORD ASKWITH: This is not a case of a person applying for a licence, but where a person providing transport facilities has appealed against the grant or backing of a road service licence.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I think that is just what I said.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE: Before we pass from this clause—I do not want to delay in any way the passage of the Bill—could the noble Earl tell us why it has been laid down that an appeal should be to the Minister? I cannot help feeling some

1577
doubt about the advisability of the Minister being the appeal court in this instance. After all, the Minister appoints one of the Commissioners in each case. There are a number of people who feel considerable doubt as to the appeal from the Commissioners being necessarily to the Minister, Could the noble Earl give us a word of explanation as to why the Minister and not some other authority should be the appeal court?
EARL RUSSELL: The best reason of all is that precisely similar appeals at this moment do go and have for a long time gone to the Minister—appeals from the grant or refusal of licences—and the principal object of continuing that practice is not that the Minister has any particular desire to be bothered by these appeals, but that by decisions in cases where questions of principle are involved the Minister may gradually establish some sort of uniformity of practice and co-ordination of traffic all over the country. That is the reason why these appeals to the Minister are continued. I dare say some equally good tribunal could be devised, but it would merely mean additional expenditure. The staff and the knowledge are at the Ministry of Transport and it is better that appeals should go to the officials concerned.
EARL HOWE: I merely raised the point because in one or two cases in London of appeals from the London Traffic Advisory Committee which have had to go to the. Minister the appellant has not been at all satisfied with the decision given. However, I quite understand the position and I thank the noble Earl for his explanation.
EARL RUSSELL: It sometimes happens that people are not satisfied with the judgment of the tribunal. I have had in my short experience to decide one or two of these appeals myself, and I can only tell the noble Earl that I did my best and so, I am sure, does the Minister.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Salaries and expenses]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "including charges in respect of separation allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement." The noble Earl said: These words in the Bill apparently had a
1578
rather paralysing effect on The Times newspaper which treated them seriously and seemed to think there was some intention to mix this up with some other form of eleemosynary grant. It was, of course, a misprint and this drafting Amendment is intended to put it right.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 36, leave out from ("expenses") to ("of") in line 38.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to. Clause 80:
Stands and stopping places.
80.—(1) A local authority may make orders for determining the routes to be followed by public service vehicles in the area or in any part of the area of the authority and for fixing stands and stopping places for public service vehicles and as to the manner of using such stands and stopping places.
(8) Nothing in this section shall empower any local authority to make any order under this section with respect to a stand in any railway station or in any yard adjoining or connected therewith without the consent of the railway company.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "routes to be followed" and to insert "routes which may be used." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the orders made by local authorities are not intended to fix routes for particular services but only to preclude the use of roads which they consider unsuitable. The orders do not have effect until the Minister of Transport confirms them. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has an Amendment on the Paper to alter "may" to "shall not." If that course is adopted it would mean that some local authorities might have to schedule a large number of residential streets and by-roads in their orders. I think it is much better that the Amendment should be in the affirmative form which I have suggested rather than in the negative form suggested by the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line, 7, leave out ("routes to be followed") and insert ("roads which may be used").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD NEWTON: I do not move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 14, after ("stand") insert ("the site of which is owned by a railway company").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, moved at the end of subsection (8), to insert "or on any part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority constituted by Act of Parliament without the consent of that authority. "The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee, who is unable to be here and has asked me to move the remaining Amendments that stand in his name. This clause enables local authorities to make orders with reference to stands. Subsection (8) exempts railway stations and yards from the operation of the clause. The object of this Amendment is to extend the exemption, I think rightly, to the estates of dock and harbour authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 16, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: The subsection as it stands is only a re-enactment of part of the Town Police Clauses Act, and it is more appropriate to the premises of railway companies, where common stands for public vehicles are usual, than to dock or harbour authorities. If the noble Lord attaches importance to this Amendment I will certainly consider it before Report and see whether it will be possible to accept it either in this or some other form.
LORD CLWYD: We do attach some importance to it, and I shall be glad if the noble Earl will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: I do not want to delay the passage of this clause, but it deals with a most important point—namely, the fixing of stopping places. It must have been the experience of many of your Lordships all over the country that many of the stopping places for public service vehicles are extremely inconvenient to other traffic. For instance, you will often find omnibuses and trams stopping almost abreast of one another, or right on a corner. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he can say what
1580
sort of policy he will pursue in this, matter? Will he be able to see to it that stopping places are so arranged that omnibuses and trams do not stop abreast or, let us say, within 40 or 50 feet of a corner? I gather from the drafting that the Minister has full powers, and I should like a word from, the noble Earl on that point.
EARL RUSSELL: In London, of course, this question of stopping places is the affair of the Commissioner of Police, as the noble Earl knows. London does not come within the provisions regarding Area Commissioners at the moment. In other parts of the country it is primarily the business of the local authority, who-are responsible for the general good working and management of the town. It is true that the Minister has to approve what they arrange and, no doubt, if complaints are made to him he will withhold his consent to an order or suggest any change that should be made-with regard to stopping places. I think the noble Earl will probably agree that, in the first instance, the local authority charged with the management of the district is the proper authority to settle these stopping places.
EARL HOWE: Do I understand that, if representations are made to the-Minister, he will take them into consideration in the event of any disagreement?
EARL RUSSELL: Of course.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Clause 83:
Protection of public interests.
(2) In the event of any undertaking by which a service of public service vehicle is-provided being purchased compulsorily by any local or public authority, that part or the value of the undertaking attributable directly or indirectly to this Act shall not be taken into account.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "directly or indirectly to" and to insert "to any licence granted under this Part of." The noble Viscount said: Clause 83 is intended, perhaps quite rightly, to prevent vested interests growing up in respect of the grant of road sevice licences under Clause 62. Subsection (2) of Clause 83 provides that, where the local

1581
or public authority purchases compulsorily any public service vehicle undertaking, no part of the value of the undertaking attributable directly or indirectly to this Act shall be taken into account. Surely those words are too wide. What would be an indirectly attributable value? I think this would almost certainly involve grave injustice. The proper test is that proposed by my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 22, leave out ("directly or indirectly to") and insert ("to any licence granted under this Part of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am not able to tell the noble Viscount at once what is exactly the meaning of the words "directly or indirectly, "but I can tell him this, that the subsection follows substantially the wording of Section 13 subsection (2) of the London Traffic Act, 1924, and they seem to be the appropriate words. The words which the noble Viscount proposes look as if they might at first blush mean the same thing, but I hesitate to accept them now. If he can suggest any way in which the words in the Bill do any harm I will consider the matter, but these words have the force of having already been in an Act of Parliament for some time.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not think that that is any answer, because there are many bad Acts of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow these words that I propose to be inserted now, and they could be taken out on Report if that action were found to be desirable. Otherwise I must press my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think I could accept them now, because I think I should find that the words already in the clause are to be found over and over again in similar sections. I think it is better they should be retained, and that we should not accept new words which might cover the same ground.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Earl is going to look into the matter I am quite satisfied with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92:
Power to run public service vehicles.
92.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a local authority having power under any local Act or order to carry on either a tramway undertaking, a trolley vehicle undertaking or an omnibus undertaking may, as part of that undertaking, run public service vehicles—

(a) on any road within their district; and

(b) with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situate, on that road;

and may purchase and maintain such: vehicles as may be necessary for the purpose.
(2) The Traffic Commissioners for any area shall, in considering whether to grant or withhold their consent to the running by a local authority of public service vehicles on any road outside the authority's district, have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served thereby, either directly or indirectly, and shall not unreasonably withhold their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions, and any question whether or not their consent has been unreasonably withheld, or whether or not any condition attached to their consent is a reasonable condition, shall be determined by the Minister.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(3) Nothing in this section shall empower a local authority to run public service vehicles on any road forming part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority constituted by Act of Parliament except with the consent of that authority."
The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to exempt from the operation of the Act roads forming part of the estate of a harbour or dock authority. This exemption is provided for in many other Local Acts, and it is thought important that the exemption should apply to the estate of dock and harbour authorities, as in other Acts.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 9, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I notice that this subsection is limited only to a local authority, and does not deal with public service vehicles in general. I am not quite clear what exactly is the position of the road on which these vehicles run. It is not, I gather, a public road, repairable by the public, and a highway in the ordinary sense. It is a road belonging to a dock company. Is there such a road so open to general public use that omnibuses could be run upon it? If it is

1583
private property, have not the owners power to close such a road against vehicles as it is? I would accept it at this stage subject to reconsidering it. I think it is really covered.
LORD CLWYD: I am very much obliged for what the noble Earl has said in regard to accepting the Amendment upon those conditions. There has been a doubt and a difficulty in regard to roadways which are used by, and belong to, dock and harbour authorities. In the past when Bills of this kind conferring rights on local authorities to run tramways have been considered it has been thought desirable to make it clear that these roads belonging to dock and harbour estates should be exempted from any possible invasion of those rights.
LORD ASKWITH: I think this is a most reasonable Amendment—at any rate, the principle of it. These dock and harbour authorities particularly require these roads to be kept under some sort of control, and if you allow outside authorities to interfere with the traffic it might be very awkward indeed.
EARL RUSSELL: All I suggest is that they already have the right of the owner of the land to control it. But I have already accepted the Amendment. Unless some objection is found to it later, I do not see why it should not be inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out Clause 92. The noble Viscount said: We have now arrived at a very important Part of the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to take it to-night, or whether he is prepared to adjourn. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of Lord Banbury. It will raise the whole question of the extension of municipal trading.
EARL RUSSELL: I think we might at any rate begin the discussion to-night.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Your Lordships know that municipal trading is only permitted to-day in accordance with various Acts of Parliament, which have been obtained from time to time by different municipalities. Tramway undertakings, omnibus undertakings, trolley vehicle undertakings and all forms of traction are now allowed in certain localities
1584
by the authority of Private Acts of Parliament, and Parliament has not allowed these municipalities to enter into a great extension of municipal trading without the whole matter being considered and discussed by Committees of Parliament. This is a Bill for the regulation of the traffic which is upon the roads to-day. We have discussed, amicably I hope and with benefit to the Bill, a very large number of proposals during the last few days, and we have now passed nearly the whole of the Bill with considerable Amendments.
By this particular Part of the Bill, Part V, any local authority which has power to carry on a tramway, trolley or omnibus undertaking may now as part of that undertaking, if this Bill is passed in its present form, run public service vehicles on any road within their district, and, "with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situate, on that road." The town council of Derby or Leicester, let us say, which has authority to run municipal tramways, may now open tram way, trolley and omnibus routes throughout any part of their borough, and may then, without any consultation of Parliament go to the Traffic Commissioners and get from them permission to run services of motor coaches, tramways and omnibuses to the East Coast, London, Manchester, and, in fact, all parts of the country. I do not know whether the noble Earl will say that is not intended, that it is only intended to run short extensions beyond the borough boundaries, but that is really an answer which I am afraid we could not accept, because we know that the appetite grows with what it feeds on, and if we give compulsory powers of this kind to these various municipalities there is no doubt whatever about what will happen. If I were a Socialist member of the council of one of these municipalities I should say at once to my colleagues: "Parliament has given us power to run a series of chars-a-bancs to Yarmouth for the benefit of our people. Let us do this. Never mind whether other undertakings are or may be in existence, we prefer a municipal series of omnibuses and motor coaches and we prefer them under our own control. That is in accordance with our principles and there is no reason, now that Parliament has given us permission, why we should not do it."

1585
If your Lordships go further on you will find in Clause 93 a wholesale power to purchase land and erect buildings. Clause 94 gives power to enter into working and other agreements with other bodies, to run public service vehicles and to use and maintain depots, buildings, property and so on. I need not read the whole of it to your Lordships. Clause 95 gives power to borrow the moneys necessary for the purposes of these great undertakings, which I do not say that the Minister would, stand up and state that he proposes or even hopes will be carried out, but which power is to be given to these authorities to carry out. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not a matter dealing with the regulation of traffic on the roads of this country. This is a Bill for the regulation of road traffic. If the Government of the day think it right to go in for the large extension of municipal trading which this would involve—the buying of land, putting up of buildings, entering into agreements with other parties and so forth—let them bring in a Bill boldly and bluntly saying that in future any municipality may in fact do it, subject to the decision of these Commissioners altogether outside the control of Parliament. Then we shall be prepared to meet them.
Those who agree with municipal trading will vote for that Bill. Those who disagree in toto with all forms of municipal trading will disagree with it. We have not to decide that point to-night. What we have to decide is whether it is right and proper to include in this Road Traffic Bill these clauses which have nothing to do with the other Parts of the Bill, which have nothing to do with the regulation of traffic on the roads, with the new code of laws which the noble Earl is going to set out for our benefit, with the alteration of the licensing powers, or with compulsory insurance; which, in fact, have nothing to do with the Bill at all except that they are "lugged" in, if I may respectfully say so, as an afterthought in order to placate certain municipalities and local authorities who want to get this power unfettered by the duty, which is not a very onerous one, of coming to your Lordships' House and getting that power in the ordinary way as they have done
1586
for many years through the agency of appearing before a Private Bill Committee.
I do not pretend to say in what way your Lordships will view this, but I thought that as my noble friend Lord Banbury was not here to move his Amendment and as I have very strong views on the subject of municipal trading, at least you would forgive me if I moved Lord Banbury's Amendment to strike out Clause 92. If your Lordships agree that it is undesirable in the Bill it will be followed by Amendments striking out the remaining clauses to clear away Part V of the Bill. With great respect to the noble Earl, I suggest that he would be well advised to lighten the Bill. We have not fought the Bill in any Party spirit. We agreed and admitted from the first that it was not a Party Bill; that it was a Bill upon which all Parties in the country and in this and the other House could unite to make a really good code for the regulation of traffic of all kinds on the road and, in particular, to do what we could to stop the holocaust of lives which are lost and of men and women who are and have been injured through motor traffic. This Part has nothing whatever to do with that. There will not be a single person saved or a single injury less if this Part of the Bill is incorporated and passed into law. It has really nothing to do with the real, main purpose of the Bill and I beg to move the Amendment. I leave it to your Lordships, but I hope you will say that there is a distinction between this and the other Parts of the Bill and will ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill not to press it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 92.—(Viscount Brentford.)
LORD DYNEVOR: I only wish to say how strongly I support my noble friend Lord Brentford, and unless the Government accept the Amendment to delete this clause I hope he will go to a Division.
EARL RUSSELL: I think we might bring this back into proportion again. What the noble Viscount says is perfectly true—a municipality is empowered by this Part of the Bill, so far as that goes, to run any distance. So far as the mere giving of the power goes they are empowered to run any distance. But I

1587
would remind your Lordships of several things which, I think, will make it fairly clear how that power is to be exercised. First of all I would remind your Lordships that this power is not given to all municipalities. It is given to the municipalities which already have statutory transport powers. I pointed out to your Lordships on Second Heading that omnibus powers have been obtained by a very large number of municipalities by Private Bills promoted in Parliament in the ordinary way, and that these powers have been given under every sort of different condition, some two miles beyond the borough boundaries, some five miles, some ten miles, some few unlimited, and that these conditions have proved, not unnaturally, very embarrassing, and very tiresome often, in the case of local authorities who wanted to co-ordinate their services.
I remember a definite instance of one which came to Parliament for new powers in consequence. It was a case in which two big boroughs were within eight miles of each other. One of them had power to run five miles beyond its boundary, and the other had power to run five miles beyond its boundary, but neither of them had power to run as far as the boundary of the other borough, and, therefore, it was impossible for them to establish a joint municipal service between those two boroughs. That field was left for the private competitor, because the councils could not serve it except, by a change in the middle. That does not seem to be a reasonable state of things. If you are to allow municipalities to exercise these powers at all, there is no reason why they should be hamstrung in the method in which they exercise them.
As regards the diversity of the decisions which have taken place I should like to remind your Lordships, if I may, of the quotation I gave your Lordships from Mr. Macmillan's speech. I shall not read it again, but I should like to remind your Lordships of one or two of his expressions. He says, and this is true of other things, that when Parliament sees that the Statute Book is becoming encumbered with a great mass of divergent legislation, causing inquiries both local and central, when, after what you may call the tentative period of legislation, all sort's of different persons are promoting what they think right, he
1588
suggests the time has come for Parliament to take the situation in hand and regularise it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: May I ask the noble Earl to say whether that was a speech by counsel promoting a Bill for more power?
EARL RUSSELL: No, it was a speech made on behalf of a railway company against an omnibus power.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: It was by a counsel at all events.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly it was by counsel, and what he said is true. We have seen it in other cases where, after conflicting Private Bill decisions, there has been evolved a model clause or model clauses or something of that sort. We are trying to do that. Here you have all these varying powers, some going one length, some going another, and, as I pointed out, nearly all the model powers subject to the consent of the Minister of Transport as to routes outside the borough. Parliament has, I think, wisely come to the conclusion that instead of defining a particular route in the Bill as a route that a municipality may take for the services, the safest and wisest thing is to allow them to make their case before the Minister of Transport, and let him give the authority. We will delegate to him the supervising of the details. It is not much more than that that is happening here.
The Minister of Transport, through these Area Commissioners, will be exercising the powers of deciding what it is wise and right for these municipalities to do and I should like to call your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 02 which says that:—
"The Traffic Commissioners for any area shall, in considering whether to grant or withhold their consent to the running by a local authority of public service vehicles on any road outside the authority's district, have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served thereby, either directly or indirectly, and shall not unreasonably withhold their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions."
That shows that they are to have regard to whether the authority's district will be served thereby. It may perfectly well be that there may be a big recreation ground or football ground or there may even be, on the borders of some great city, a sleeping

1589
ground for workers of that city five, six or seven miles from the city. It would not be at all unreasonable that the municipality should provide services to that place, assuming and remembering always that they have already got from Parliament the right to supply these services at all.
What does the noble Viscount say ought to take place? He says: "No, if you do this, you will be giving the local authorities powers far beyond what they ought to possess. Parliament will have no control over what the Commissioners do. How do you know they will not have a right to run omnibuses up to London, to race meetings, to the seaside, anywhere?" First, you must remember that the ratepayers will have to pay for these services. The ratepayers will elect the councillors and they will elect only those who carry out their wishes and, if the councillors do something they disapprove of, the ratepayers will soon turn the councillors out. That is the very first check on expenditure. Then you have to go to the Minister to get power to borrow money for your omnibuses. Really, when the noble Viscount talks about these powers to acquire land and so on, he knows very well that it only means to acquire land for your garages. There is nothing terrible about that. Ultimately you have to go to the Area Commissioner and it is obvious that one of his stock questions must be: "In what way does this serve the interests of your borough? Show me how it is connected, directly or indirectly, with the interests of your borough? What benefit is it going to be to the inhabitants who pay the rates and provide these services? "He will want evidence of that. Finally, you have the possibility, if anyone thinks the Area Commissioner has been too easy, of appealing to the Minister to settle the question. With all these precautions you are not running such a terrible risk as the noble Viscount makes out.
What is the alternative? He says the alternative is that in every case where a borough now has power to run five miles outside its boundaries and for the convenience of its inhabitants it is found desirable it should run ten miles outside, it must come to Parliament to get powers. He talks as if it were perfectly easy and simple. Everybody knows that it costs a very great deal to get a Private
1590
Bill through. The cost has to be added to the fares of the municipal services; they have to pay for it. I ought to add this, and the records will bear me out, that the powers have not been refused by Parliament of recent years. They have been freely granted on reasonable terms to boroughs who have asked for them during recent years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If I may say so, very rarely unlimited—only in one or two cases.
EARL RUSSELL: I agree, and neither am I suggesting that in practice there is the remotest chance that they will be unlimited. The noble Viscount shakes his head. Does he seriously suggest that Liverpool (shall I say?) will start running a fleet of omnibuses to London? If he seriously suggests that, does he suggest that that will be done in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants of Liverpool? If it is done in consonance with the wishes of the inhabitants of Liverpool, why should they not be allowed to do it? He knows perfectly well that that sort of thing is not likely to happen. Why should these people be compelled to come to Parliament for a little thing like that, spend thousands of pounds and suffer a year's delay? And let mo add another consideration. This may be one of the reasons why the noble Viscount and his friends oppose it. Every private competitor who is not a statutory undertaker, who has to get nobody's leave to borrow money, who has to get nobody's leave to set up a service except that of the Area Commissioner, would be entitled to get an order from the Area Commissioner and establish a service in some suburb, as I suggested, of a large town, and get the goodwill of the service for a year, or more likely two years, before the borough is able to get statutory powers to do it.
I am bound to say I think this Part of the Bill is eminently reasonable. It does provide a sort of standard for these various powers and it does give you an opportunity of those powers being exercised under most reasonable conditions, with the possibility always, in the end, of an appeal to the Minister and of course, finally, of the Minister's decision being questioned in Parliament. I do hope your Lordships will not be so extremely—what shall I say?—unwise as to reject,

1591
these very simple powers. The noble Viscount says: "Let a separate Bill he brought in for that purpose." A separate Bill for that purpose has, I believe, been introduced in another place. I do not gather that when it comes here it will get any different reception from the noble Viscount because it is a separate Bill.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I did not say it would.
EARL RUSSELL: I must ask your Lordships to agree to this Part of the Bill and personally I shall regret it very much if your Lordships throw it out.
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment has been described—no doubt correctly—as a very important one. I am inclined to think that description is perfectly true, and therefore I venture to suggest that it does not seem, with the House composed as it is at present, very desirable to take a Division on a question of such importance. I would suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that the debate should be adjourned and resumed at the earliest possible opportunity when it is to be hoped there will be a more representative attendance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether my noble friend's appeal was made to me. It seemed to be addressed to me, but I am not the Leader of the House. I have always thought that your Lordships' convenience in these matters ought to be suited, when it is a question of whether we should sit late after dinner, but I thought there was a great deal in what the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, said earlier in the evening, that we ought not to show reluctance to get on with the business which the Government have laid before us, and especially in the case of this Bill which has been so admirably conducted by the noble Earl. I really do not see any reason why we should adjourn at a quarter past ten. I should have thought the matter was ripe for decision. After all, this is a question of principle. It is not as if we, were engaged in questioning the noble Earl's very wonderful efforts to save the lives of people on the roads. There is no question about that. That is a totally different matter. If I may say so, it really does not belong to the main current of the Bill at all. I should have thought the matter was one for your Lordships to decide.
EARL RUSSELL: If I may say a word on that, I think that is really a matter for your Lordships to consider. If we adjourn now until to-morrow I understand, from the business that is set down for to-morrow, that we should be hardly likely to resume the discussion on this Bill until nearly dinner time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly not before then.
EARL RUSSELL: That would mean that we should be sitting after dinner. The alternative to sitting after dinner to-morrow to finish the Bill would be to discuss it on Friday morning. I very much doubt whether that would be convenient to your Lordships. I am quite in the hands of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let us go on.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I venture very respectfully to make an appeal to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill not to press these clauses, though not because I have any particular feeling about municipal socialism, for I feel strongly that it is rather too late to raise that question. These powers have been granted to a number of municipalities. The question of principle does not really arise in these clauses, and I doubt whether I should be disposed to come to any decision on that point against them. What is the case that is really made for them? They are in the nature of a Clauses Bill, very similar to the Railway Clauses Bills and other measures dealing with waterworks, gas and so on. Here are matters which have been handed over to a number of municipalities on various conditions, and the time has now come to codify those conditions and to have a system in regard to these clauses. I think that is a powerful case for a Bill.
But I am terribly frightened at the extent and complexity of this Bill. I am very anxious indeed that it should become law. As the noble Earl knows, I do not think it goes quite so far as I should have liked it to go, but I do believe that it will do a great deal to improve the safety of the roads. Throughout this discussion I have been thinking that, if your Lordships have spent several days in Committee on this Bill, it is very likely that in another place a very long time indeed will be spent on it. I had

1593
the honour of sitting in the other House for a considerable number of years. I took rather an active part in discussions there, and sometimes I was accused of obstruction. It was always untrue, but I have known the accusation to be made. I think I know a little about the methods of obstructionists and what really operates in their minds. Suppose there be in the other House a body of gentlemen, as there are, who take very much the views that my noble friend Lord Brentford takes—not views that I could always share.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We used to share the same views.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I know. I have learned. I respect those views very much. They are perfectly reasonable and honourable views and there are a number of people who hold them. These people, seeing a Bill with this bundle of clauses in it at the end, will take a certain course. They will say: "This will not be a very easy issue to fight in itself and we would rather avoid doing that, but we want to prevent this happening and we will take care that the discussion is so prolonged on the earlier clauses of the Bill that this matter will not be raised in the House at all and the provisions will not be passed." That may sound a very cynical and uncharitable view to take of these things, but it is not really so, as any one who has sat in the other House will agree. That is the kind of way in which things are worked, though it may be a very bad system of legislation. What I feel is that here is a Bill which presents immense opportunities for prolonged discussion. It has 109 clauses, it has immensely elaborate provisions and, if anybody wished to obstruct it, he could do so. Personally I should like Part IV to be left out for the same reason. I think it is a good Part, but I think it is too elaborate considering the immense urgency of getting legislation for the safety of the roads. Therefore I very earnestly beg the Government not to insist upon Part V. If they do, they will imperil the Bill. After the warning given from the Front Opposition Bench of the feelings which many of that Party hold with regard to this question, they will imperil the Bill; and quite apart from the merits, which may be as great as they say, I feel that they will be very
1594
wisely guided if they say that, being anxious to get the other Parts of the Bill, they will not insist upon Part V.
LORD SANDHURST: I only intervene because I do not quite follow what the noble Earl said about the right of appeal to the Minister. I observe that there is an appeal to the Minister, but it appears to be a unilateral appeal. The Commissioners are to have regard to the extent to which the requirements of the authority's district will be served, and shall not unreasonably withhold—not give—their consent, but they may attach to their consent any reasonable conditions and any question whether or not their consent has been unreasonably withheld—not given—or whether or not any condition attached to their consent is a reasonable condition, shall be determined by the Minister. So that the municipality seeking powers, if it has an adverse decision, may go to the Minister, but in the contrary event (and I find no directions as to when the Commissioners are to hear) it looks as if the opposition would have no appeal to the Minister.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: When I listened to the, as usual, moderate and very eloquent speech of Earl Russell, I confess that I was almost convinced until he got to the very last few sentences of his speech, when I think he showed us the mailed fist beneath the velvet glove. He showed us that it was in order that private enterprise might be crushed out of existence. He told us that it was possible for two municipalities to be able to run their omnibuses or trams within ten miles of etch other. He then said that private enterprise might be running an efficient service between the two-points, and that the whole object was that muncipalities might be able to run in competition with the private enterprise which was already carrying out its work very efficiently, and by the aid of a subsidy from the rates crush the private enterprise out of existence. What Lord Sandhurst has said strengthens that view. There is an appeal, but no power is given to any omnibus company, or even railway company, to appeal to the Minister if they feel aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners. I hope your Lordships will resist the whole of this Part of the Bill.
I am not an out and out opponent of municipal enterprise. On occasions I

1595
feel it is necessary, but I am convinced that this is not the Bill where these things should be encouraged. The whole way through the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has refused to accept any Amendment which had nothing to do with motor cars. Lord Howe proposes to move that the Bill shall be called the Motor Act, but if this Part of the Bill is carried I think we should propose to alter it to the Motor Traffic and Municipal Trading Advancement Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Part of the Bill, and if it goes to a Division I shall certainly support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does the noble Earl really suggest that thousands of pounds are to be expended by municipalities because they want to advance their tramways a few miles?
LORD ASKWITH: I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that this is an attempt by one municipality, with the help of another municipality, to squeeze out an intervening district, and to make a huge network of municipalised undertakings over the country. That could not be done by this Bill. Neither do I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in saying that this Part of the Bill could possibly mean the municipalising of the whole vehicular traffic of this country. I am much more inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, when he says that this is a portion of a great subject which might well be dealt with in another Bill and stand by itself without the additions that have been interpreted into it. I cannot see in reading it that it really allows such powers as are suggested to municipalities and local authorities which have gone to Parliament in the ordinary way and obtained certain powers, or those which might go in the ordinary way and are able to obtain ordinary powers, for running their own vehicles, for purchasing lands and buildings, for entering into working agreements with minor authorities, and for borrowing money for that purpose. Really to say that this is the municipalisation of the undertakings, and that it is intended to squeeze out, on the extreme socialistic doctrine, an intervening authority so that two municipalities, say Liverpool and Manchester, can unite together to say that there shall be
1596
nothing intervening between them, appears to be perfectly absurd. But I do think that this portion of the Bill could be much better and more simply dealt with separately, and without rousing the sort of feeling which would be aroused, both here and in another place, by its inclusion in this Bill.
EARL HOWE: As an unrepentant Tory I am entirely opposed to municipal trading, root and branch, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, I am not too much impressed with the theory that Part V will lead to an enormous extension of municipal trading. I am perfectly certain that the difficulties the municipalities would encounter with the Commissioners and so on would probably prevent that. But there is certainly a danger in it. I do not know whether Sheffield has power to run motor omnibuses in the way described, but, if it has, I am sure it would not be long before we had an attempt by Sheffield to run motor omnibuses to Blackpool, or anywhere. And as for the noble Earl telling us that the ratepayers would be protected because they are public bodies, I do not think those who know anything about Sheffield would attach very much importance to that.
What I am chiefly concerned with is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. To anybody who dislikes any portion of this Bill this is a godsend from the point of view of opposition. By skilfully using all the arts of an opposition in another place I am perfectly certain it would be very easy indeed to prevent this Bill passing. Here is a Part of the Bill which does not in any way affect the great question. The real reason for this Bill is the prevention of the appalling number of casualties on the roads. It is the urge which has been created by that which has really produced this Bill now; otherwise, I am certain it would not have seen the light of day so soon as it has. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has, I think, agreed to that already on one or two occasions. It has not been faced with any sort of opposition from the people who, like myself, have placed a number of Amendments on the Paper. I could have spoken at great length on many of those Amendments on the question whether the clause should stand part or not. One could speak for hours on such points. We

1597
have not done that. We have done everything we could to help the passage of the Bill. I ask the noble Earl to consider whether he cannot respond to the appeal made with such force by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to delete this portion of the Bill which really does not in any way affect the rest of it. It would be a thoroughly good Bill without it and it would go through and would be perfectly certain to reach the Statute Book. With this Part in it I think there is an element of doubt whether it will ever reach the Statute Book. We have to think of the appalling list of accidents and casualties on the roads to-day. We want to do something to stop that state of things. I ask the noble Earl, therefore, to see whether he cannot respond to the appeal that has been made to him.
LORD AMULREE: I submit that many of the speakers take an exaggerated view of the scope of this Bill. First of all, the Bill provides that municipal undertakers which already have powers to run tramways or trolley vehicles or omnibuses may run public services on any of the roads in their districts. There is no objection to that, surely. Secondly, with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners for the area in which any other road is situated, to run them on that road. Those are the two conditions that attach to the powers sought to be extended by this Part of the Bill. The other clauses in this Part are supplementary. It cannot be said in reference to these limited provisions, first of all of running public service vehicles on any road within their own area, that there is an extension of municipal trading in the sense in which it was mentioned this evening, or secondly, in the fact that they may extend their powers outside their area with the consent of the Traffic Commissioners.
So far as I can see it is mainly putting a municipality in the same position as any public service company which may be established pursuant to this Bill. That service company would apply to the Traffic Commissioners for permission to run particular road services. In these circumstances I submit that the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Brentford about the extension of municipal trading are somewhat exaggerated and that all that is sought by this Part of the Bill is to confer powers
1598
analogous to what may be conferred upon public service companies, subject in all these cases to the consent of the Traffic Commissioners.
LORD CLWYD: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I have had considerable experience of the other House, and understand, what may happen in the circumstances in which this Bill may reach that House. But we have nothing directly to do with that. We have to decide the question upon its merits in this House. I regret—and I say it openly—that this particular Part of the Bill has been included in it. The Bill is an effort to secure greater safety for road traffic and it is impossible to find a logical connection between the extension of the powers contained in this Part of the Bill and the main object of the Bill. I regret therefore that there has been this attempt to legislate on this particular matter, which has nothing whatever to do with the main object of this measure. On the other hand I see the powers given are certainly limited. I hope the noble Earl, when he replies to the speeches that have been made, will give a definite explanation of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst in regard to the one-sided appeal. I think it is very important it should be made clear that not only those in favour but also those opposed should have a similar light of appeal. I have not gone closely into it, but it seems to me they have not that right. Although I personally am sorry the Government have incorporated this new Part in the Bill, speaking for myself I am prepared to support the Government with the assurance, which I hope we shall be able to receive from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and other points in regard to the limitation will be made clear, at all events before the measure reaches its final stage in the other House.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seemed to think the appeal was one-sided, but if he will look at the top of page 55 he will see that any person, being a person providing transport facilities, who has opposed the grant of a road service licence, if he is aggrieved by the grant, may appeal to the Minister, so that people who are

1599
against the grant of these licences can appeal to the Minister in just the same way as those in favour.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That has nothing to do with this.
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly it has. A person who has opposed the grant of a road service licence may appeal to the Minister. Not one of these municipal services can be run without the grant of a road service licence and any person who has opposed that can appeal to the Minister. Clause 75 deals with appeals in regard to road service licences and there is no question about the right of appeal to the person who has opposed the grant of a licence.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I differ from the noble Earl's interpretation. Under Clause 92, if these Commissioners give their permission, a local authority may purchase and maintain vehicles, and whether, when they come afterwards to get a licence for a particular vehicle, someone has to appeal is not the question. There is power given under Clause 92 to buy vehicles and erect garages for them.
EARL RUSSELL: What on earth is the good of purchasing vehicles until they have got road service licences? They cannot run them until they get the road service licences. Then there is an appeal either against the grant or refusal of road service licences.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the noble Earl will look at subsection (7) of Clause 62 he will see that it says:—
"A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order."
EARL RUSSELL: Is there anything in Part V of this Bill which specially authorises a route?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Yes, that is the whole purpose of it.
EARL RUSSELL: I see nothing about specially authorising a route. Some routes are specially authorised by name in Private Acts. What he refers to is the saving of those routes. It is clear in
1600
any case that a road service licence is subject to appeal. I was rather interested to hear some of the violent observations about that old bugbear, municipal trading, which is another word for objecting to the community doing what it thinks will be useful for itself. I wonder if noble Lords who spoke so violently, particularly the noble Lord on the Back Benches, would be interested to hear what took place at the Association of Municipal Corporations, which held an annual meeting on November 27, over which Mr. Neville Chamberlain presided, and which passed this resolution:—
"That this Association approves the principle of the Bill to enable local authorities to provide and run omnibuses within and without their districts."
They seem to have been presided over by a good friend of noble Lords opposite, but he does not seem to have expressed any dissent to the Resolution.
If this Part of the Bill is now for the first time to be regarded as in any sense a political question, your Lordships know that the Royal Commission is still sitting and the Minister thought it proper to ask the Chairman to bring this matter before the Royal Commission and take their views on it. Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen has written a letter under the date November 27, as follows:—
"The Royal Commission has had under consideration the question which you brought before me—namely, the proposal to include in the Road Traffic Bill a clause which would enable any local authority already possessing transport powers of any kind to operate omnibus services either inside or outside its area, thus obviating the necessity of the authority going to Parliament for an extension of its existing powers. This is part of a larger question with which the Commission had already decided to deal, after further consideration, in the final Report, but my colleagues see no reason why this broad proposal should not be included in the Bill. The result would be to place those local authorities which at present possess limited powers to provide transport services in a position of equality with other operators when applying for a licence to the Traffic Commissioners and it should further enable such authorities to substitute omnibuses for tramways if they considered it to be in the public interest so to do."
That was the considered opinion of the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will see it is not a Party issue but a matter of ordinary common sense. I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion to withdraw

1601
this Part of the Bill. It is killed by the knife of the noble Viscount opposite and it is killed by the kindness of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches. It is with us a matter of principle and a matter of good administration. I also
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 93 to 98 negatived.
Clause 99:
Provisions as to regulations.
99.—(1) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
"(1) Before any regulations are made under this Act they shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such regulations shall not he made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree but upon such approval being given the Minister or the Commissioners by whom the regulations are proposed to be made may make the regulations in the form in which they have been so approved and the regulations on being so made shall be of full force and effect."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment which is on the Paper in
1602
take this view and if he presses his Amendment we must go to a Division.
On Question, Whether Clause 92, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Amulree, L.

Riddell, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.(L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Allendale, V.

Marks, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Glanely, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Chaplin, V.

Lucan, E.

Churchill, V.

Newton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Knutsford, V.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Plymouth, E.

Auckland, L.

Wavertree, L.

Stanhope, E.

the name of Lord Askwith. I do not know whether the Government will accept the proposal to omit subsection (1) in order to put in the stronger form which we agreed to when discussing rules and regulations earlier. The stronger form is more in accordance, I think, with the modern view of the rights of Parliament as against regulations made by Ministers. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the arguments used earlier, but will merely say that I think the subsection on the Amendment Paper is much better than the one in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 85, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: Like the noble Viscount, I will not argue this question again, but I would point out to noble Lords opposite that they are possibly laying up a whip for themselves when we change sides again.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Viscount said that this Amendment was in accordance with modern views. That is quite true, but they are not very modern views. It is not quite in accordance with the views that the noble Viscount held when he was in office.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is in accordance with modern views since he has

1603
changed from one side of the House to the other, and is now opposing the powers to be given to the bureaucracy of which he was in favour when he was in office.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Like my noble friend who dealt with the matter before the noble Earl was back from another place, I have learned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) Before making regulations under this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit,"
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. The Minister, I know, makes great use of the motoring organisations. Perhaps he would feel able to accept this Amendment, These organisations are particularly anxious to do anything in their power to help him in the administration of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: A similar provision is found in Part I, where it is really appropriate. I think it is less appropriate to this Part. If there were occasion for consultation, of course the Minister would consult them. I do not think it necessary to direct him to do so.
EARL HOWE: I do not wish to press the Amendment, so long as it is clear that the Minister will consult them. The associations thought the point important since this Part is a general summary, but it does not matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Expenses of Roads Department]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 25, leave out from ("of") to ("as") in line 27 and insert ("superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement ").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104.
Clause 105 [Special Provisions as to Scotland]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have several drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 3, leave out ("as respects Scotland")
Page 71, line 10, leave out ("in Scot-land.")
Page 72, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("in Scotland.")
Page 72, After line 9, insert the following new subsection:—
( (8) "This section shall extend to Scotland only.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107:
Interpretation.
107.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Road" means any public highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes:
(2) Parts I and III of this Act, other than the section of this Act making provision with respect to extraordinary traffic, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown, and in the case of any such vehicle the person whom the department in whose service the vehicle is used names as the person actually responsible shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the person who causes or permits the vehicle to be on any road:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister may by order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, vary in relation to vehicles used for naval, military or air force purposes the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act; and

(b) the restriction imposed by this Act on persons under twenty-one years with respect to the driving of heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors or heavy motor cars, and the provisions of the section of this Act limiting the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty shall not apply.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to insert "'Licence' includes provisional licence. "The noble Viscount said: If this Amendment is not thought advisable I will not press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 29, at end insert ("' Licence ' includes provisional licence").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: No, it is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "road," to leave out "public," The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to provide for a definition in legal language. The definition of "road" is "public highway." To speak of a public highway is redundancy. A highway is a public way and I suggest for the sake of precision of language that the word "public" be omitted. I agree there are Statutes where the expression is used, but I suspect it is due to oversight.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 31, leave out ("public").—(Lord Amulree.)
EARL RUSSELL: Of course the noble Lord is perfectly right. The word "public" is redundant and the only excuse is that it is to be found in the Motor Car Act, 1903. I will do whatever the Committee desires.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: We always talk of a public highway.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, on behalf of Lord Ritchie, moved in subsection (1), in the definition of "Road," after "has," to insert "the right of." The noble Lord said: It is only a question of drafting, but it was thought very desirable that there should be no doubt what public access to a road means.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 32, after ("has") insert "the right of").—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think there are objections to this Amendment. This description of "road" goes back to 1903—"any public highway and any other road to which the public has access." It is a very much easier thing to ascertain the fact whether the public-has access than it is to ascertain the legal fact whether there is a legal right of access; and I think we had better retain words which deal with the facts rather than insert words which deal with the legal right, which may be doubtful. The
1606
object is that where the public has access and the motor cars require regulating they should be regulated.
LORD CLWYD: The noble Earl will realise the kind of case in which the difficulty may arise. This Amendment is put down mainly on behalf of the dock and harbour authorities. In their case there may be roadways, pending upon public highways, in regard to which there may be doubt as to the public right of access. They take access, they go along these roadways, and it is thought that it would be helpful to have those words put in the Bill. Of course if the noble Earl, says he cannot accept the Amendment I will not press it.
EARL RUSSELL: If the dock and harbour authorities have got on for twenty years with the definition as it is they do not appear to have suffered much damage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD, on behalf of Lord Ritchie of Dundee, moved to add to the definition of "Road" "'Bridge' includes a floating railway." The noble Lord said: This is a question of the powers which the bridge authority may have in regard to a bridge, and, as there are many cases in which the functions of a bridge are carried out by a floating roadway, I feel sure there will be no objection to accepting it.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not see sufficient reason for accepting this. I do not quite know, if it is not a bridge and if it is a boat, why the provisions of the Bill should apply to it, or why it should toe included here. It seems to me to be inappropriate.
LORD CLWYD: Perhaps the noble Earl will consider it if certain information as to the difficulties that have arisen is put before him.
EARL RUSSELL: Most certainly, if the noble Lord sends us a note of any difficulty we will see what can be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ON SLOW THE EARL OF ON SLOW moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I only move this in order to clear up the

1607
position of drivers of vehicles belonging to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Drivers in uniform both of vehicles which belong to the Department and of vehicles such as the Territorial vehicles, which have to have a local government licence, come under the category in regard to which I wish to ask the question. I wonder whether those are affected or not affected by the Bill? That is the point I want to raise.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL RUSSELL: This was intended to make the Act apply, as the Act of 1903 did, to servants of the Crown as a general rule, but to exempt the armed forces of the Crown. It has not, I think, been drawn very successfully, because it does not refer to armed forces but to the public servants of the Crown and it might possibly include postmen. It might even, I think, include a civil servant driving his car. But it has been the subject of communication with the War Office, and I think we shall have to bring up some Amendment of it on Report. It certainly is intended to cover the Territorial forces, but only, I suppose, while they are in uniform or in training.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: But not in uniform as regards the dockyards?
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid I cannot say, but, anyhow, the clause has to be reconsidered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (2), to leave out "order," and to insert "regulation". The noble Viscount said: The object is to suggest that orders are only to be made for the purpose of manœuvres.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 11, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, if the noble Earl prefers it, but it might quite well happen that you would have to make several regulations. The circumstances might change.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment to omit proviso (b) of subsection (2). The noble Earl said: The
1608
point is really the same as that raised by Lord Onslow. I do not wish to press the noble Earl if he is going to produce a new clause on Report.
EARL RUSSELL: No, as I think it is going to be considered we might as well leave it.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

LIMITS OF SPEED.

Maximum Speed—

Class of Vehicle.

Miles per Hour.

3. Heavy Motor Cars and Motor Tractors.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and not drawing a trailer

30

4. Motor Cars and Motor Cycles.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres, not drawing a trailer, and constructed to carry not more than eight persons in addition to the driver

No limit

LORD MARKS LORD MARKS moved, in 3 (1) (a), after "trailer," to insert "except in the Metropolitan Police area in which area the maximum speed shall be twenty miles per hour." The noble Lord said: It is thought that in the Metropolitan Police area public passenger vehicles travelling at thirty miles per hour would increase the congestion which is already bad enough, and the suggestion has been made that we should test that point here as to whether there should be an exception made in London, seeing that the congestion there is greater than in any other part of the country. Whatever may be decided elsewhere, it is proposed by this Amendment that the speed should be twenty miles per hour in the Metropolitan Police area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 20, after ("trailer") insert ("except in the Metropolitan Police area in which area the maximum speed shall be 20 miles per hour").—(Lord Marks.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The limits of the London County Council do not extend, of course, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area. The County Council has to consider the question of traffic within the Administrative County of London. I have an Amendment to line 9 on page 78 limiting the speed within the County of London to thirty-five miles an hour. The question of passenger vehicles was not raised. I do not think that they thought that of very great importance, but felt that there should be some general limit placed on the speed of motor cars within the County of London.
EARL HOWE: On that particular point I cannot help thinking that it would be very inadvisable to have special limits for special areas. There are quite sufficient complications in the Bill already. The London County Council area which has just been mentioned begins somewhere in the middle of King's Street, Hammersmith, and the moment it crossed the border, which is a hypothetical line somewhere there, the traffic could at once speed up or, coming the other way, it would have to slow down. Exactly the same considerations will arise in connection with the Metropolitan Police area. The noble Lord opposite is very well acquainted, I believe, with the East Grinstead road. Part of the area over which he has jurisdiction is comprised in the Metropolitan Police area and part in the Surrey Police area. When you cross the border you find everything sprinting up and going a little faster or going slower when it is going the other way. It would be very difficult for a driver to know what to do. It might mean a multiplication of signs. There are enough of those for the driver of a motor vehicle to look out for already. I hope the House will not agree with any such artificial provision.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The noble Earl knows that he has only to put his foot a little harder on the accelerator when he is going one way and to slacken speed when he is going the other way. It would be quite simple to mark the place where the thirty-five mile limit began and there would be no difficulty in the driver finding out where it was.
EARL HOWE: It is exceedingly difficult to put up a sign which the driver of a motor vehicle would be able to see
1610
quickly. The background is either shops or houses, and if a driver is to drive properly his attention ought to be concentrated on his work and not on the signs at the side of the road. Therefore this suggestion would not work.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think this Amendment is a misconception of the principle of the Bill. We have taken out the speed limit, not to authorise a man to drive at thirty-five, forty, fifty or seventy-five miles an hour, but to drive at a speed which is safe. There is no suggestion that thirty-five miles an hour is safer than forty miles. But placing a particular speed limit in an individual county is against the whole principle of the Bill and the foundation on which the noble Earl made his speeches on the earlier stages.
EARL RUSSELL: I think this matter ought not to be pursued after the discussion we have had. As the noble Viscount has just said it is contrary to the whole idea of the Bill to have special areas speckled with special speed limits, with the suggestion that that is the safe limit for the area. We decided that was not to be the principle. We decided to go on the principle that no limit was safe and no limit was dangerous. It always depended on the circumstances of the case. Here there is a limit of thirty miles which the noble Lord is seeking to reduce by this Amendment to twenty miles. I hope your Lordships will not alter it. The thirty miles is a concession because they are using pneumatic tyres and are doing less damage to the roads and it is a reasonable speed for these vehicles. As to the smaller speeds as to which there are many Amendments on the Paper I said I hoped we were going to coalesce these in the Schedule but we have not been able to do it. It was not worth doing in detail till the Government put down their Amendments.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: That being so I hope noble Lords will refrain from moving Amendments now on the understanding that we shall have a new Schedule on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will help me by telling me if there are any more Amendments to be moved. I understand Lord Howe does not move.
EARL HOWE: I want to move my Amendment on page 78, line 9.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I prefer to move my Amendment and leave it to the Committee to decide. I do not wish to withdraw it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Earl Howe's Amendment comes before that.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had an Amendment in the paragraph referring to passenger vehicles, to leave out "No imit" and insert "40." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one I actually moved at an earlier stage in Committee but when a Division was challenged my attention was distracted and I did not challenge again. I wish to apologise to a number of your Lordships who asked me what I was going to do about it. I said I was going to a Division and I intended to do so, but as I have said owing to my attention, being distracted at the critical moment I did not challenge till the moment to do so had passed. I am not going to rehash the arguments I then used. I only speak on this Amendment to make clear to your Lordships who were inconvenienced by my action at that time what happened.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl has explained, but does not move his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved in paragraph (a) to leave out "No limit" and to insert "(i) Within the administrative county of London….35; (ii) Elsewhere…. No Limit." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 9, leave out ("No limit") and insert ("(i) Within the administrative county of London…35; (ii) Elsewhere…No limit").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: I have already said all I need say on this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Traffic Areas]:
EARL RUSSELL: I beg to move a number of Amendments, one in manuscript and the others on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 5, leave out ("Elgin") and insert ("Moray")
Page 83, line 6, after ("Zetland") insert ("Kincardine")
Page 83, line 8, leave out ("South Western") and insert ("Southern")
Page 83, line 12, leave out ("Hadding-ton").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Enactments Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

24 & 25 Viet, c. 70.

The Locomotives Act. 1861.

The whole Act, except sections one, two, ten and fourteen.

LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, in the reference to the Locomotives Act, 1861, to add the word "seven" after the word "two." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to preserve the protection afforded by Section 7 of the Locomotives Act, 1861. It is an important protection against damage by locomotive action.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 36, column 3, after ("two") insert ("seven").—(Lord Clwyd.)
EARL RUSSELL: The effect would be to continue in force Section 7 of the Locomotives Act, 1861, which relieves persons liable to repair damage from any repair for damage caused by a locomotive and makes the owner of the locomotive liable to reimburse the owners of the bridge or any persons for damage caused to them by loss of tolls or obstruction. In 1861 the locomotive was regarded as a fearsome and noisome beast and punished for being on the bridge at all. That is not the modern view. It is expressly provided in Clause 24 subsection (2) that the penalties for driving a motorcar over a bridge in contravention of the notices shall be without prejudice to the owner's civil liability. The provisions of Section 7 are out of date and I must resist the Amendment.
LORD CLWYD: Would a motor vehicle be a locomotive?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
LORD CLWYD: Then that meets the case practically.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.

FLIGHT TO AFRICA: AIRMEN KILLED.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am afraid the Secretary of State for Air has some bad news to impart to your Lordships and, therefore, to put myself in order, I will formally ask him if he has any news as to the non-stop flight to Africa?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I am sorry to say I have just heard that the Fairey-Napier monoplane crashed 20 miles south of Tunis and both the occupants
1614
were killed. I have no further details. The report is undated, but that report comes from the British Consul-General at Tunis.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

LANARKSHIRE TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.