ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 04 February 1930 vol 76 cc410-60

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL)

My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I think it might be convenient, and will save time afterwards, if I say a word about some of the Amendments which appear on the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that I undertook to see my right hon. friend the Home Secretary with regard to the question of police constables in uniform. I have fulfilled that undertaking, and I am glad to say that I have succeeded in persuading him to agree to what I think was the general desire of your Lordships, that the stopping of cars on roads should be limited to constables in uniform. In other cases it is, of course, quite proper that a constable need not be in uniform, because he has his duties to perform, and I hope that the concession that I have obtained will satisfy your Lordships. With regard to another matter, "drunk in charge of a car," I am sorry to say that the police view is that it would be impossible to take out those words, because without those words convictions would not be obtained in a great many cases. Therefore I am not able to meet the wishes of some of your Lordships in regard to that matter.

With regard to the clause about driving on commons, or rather driving elsewhere than on the highway, I have put down an. Amendment which is intended to meet the point of the noble Earl opposite, and I hope he will find that it does so. This clause has caused a great deal of complaint, and somewhat irritated complaint, in many of the motoring papers. I do not know whether your Lordships have read those papers, but I have seen indignant complaints of people who say that they have been in the habit of going for motor drives in the country and enjoying picnics, and who complain that they are going to be prevented by this Bill from enjoying further picnics. I saw one statement which said that it was a perfectly ridiculous provision, because the motorist had often driven a mile from the road to some place of solitude and there enjoyed a picnic. It does not seem to have occurred to the writer in the paper, or to the motorist, that it was not his solitude, and that he was not intended to drive over that part of the world at all. I have also noticed a letter in The Times dealing with the same matter from the other point of view, and written by a gentleman who says how very much he has suffered from this sort of thing. He says that the motorist when asked to take his car away is sometimes abusive and wantonly destructive. He says:— Cars in scores are driven down the footpaths through the woods, parked in the drive or on the heather, and every notice board torn down or defaced. I do not know whether it is supposed to be a hardship that people are not supposed to do that sort of thing, nor do I think it should be recognised as a right of the motorist simply because he owns a car to drive on other people's property. That seems to be the view which these papers take, and I do not think that your Lordships will wish to alter the clause which we have put in the Bill.

The other Amendments are largely drafting. There are also a large number of Amendments the object of which is simply to alter the order of the clauses, and to re-arrange them in an order which is more convenient and more rational. In conclusion, I think I ought to thank your Lordships for the assistance which has been extended to me in charge of this rather heavy Bill, for the many useful suggestions which have been made, and for the kindness and consideration shown to me in my task. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Earl Russell.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not desire to go into the details with which the noble Earl has favoured us, but I think that noble Lords on these Benches, and indeed in all parts of the House, would hardly like us to allow this opportunity to pass without saying to the noble Earl how grateful we are to him for the way in which he has conducted this Bill. He has shown, if one so old as myself in the service of the House may say so, such a grasp of the Bill, and such a conciliatory disposition in dealing with the Amendments which have been proposed, that he has almost set us a pattern of how a Bill should be conducted.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I should like to echo what has been said by the noble Marquess. I did not expect that before the end of the Third Reading the opportunity would have occurred of throwing bouquets from one side of the House to the other. But, as the noble Earl opposite has thrown a bouquet to this side, the least we can do is to retaliate and return one to him. It is a long time since a long and complicated Bill like this was so well conducted through the House as the noble Earl has conducted this Bill. The good temper with which he has answered us has been an example to us all, and I am sure the Government have every reason to congratulate themselves upon the result.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, as one who has moved perhaps more Amendments to this Bill than anybody else, except the Minister himself, perhaps I might be allowed to make two remarks on the Third Reading, observing that I have no Amendments with which I desire to trouble your Lordships on the Third Reading itself. First of all, I should like to support everything that has been said about the conduct of the Bill by the Minister. We have nothing but admiration for the way in which the noble Earl has conducted the Bill. But there are one or two things I should like to say about it. First of all, I moved a number of Amendments which were designed to secure two things—first and foremost, better and safer conditions on the highway, and, secondly, justice for the motor driver; or rather the prevention of injustice to him. Those of us who have suffered from the Motor Car Act have only too good reason to know how much advantage has been taken of technical details in the existing Act in order to secure at times altogether unreasonably restrictive action on the part of the police against motorists. Nobody will get up in these days and defend the dangerous driver. We are all in favour of checking dangerous driving, and the existing Motor Car law has in some counties and in some areas been extremely well administered, and has enabled the police to catch offenders. In other counties this has not been the case. Every advantage there has been taken to secure convictions on technical points, which really did nothing to ensure the safety or convenience of the public, and merely produced a certain amount of contempt for the administration of the law.

This Bill is no doubt very well intentioned, but, as it seems to me, all that it really does is first of all to impose very severe penalties upon dangerous driving. Quite rightly; but all that I wanted to do in my Amendments was to see that those penalties were inflicted upon the dangerous driver, and not upon people who do not come within that category. The Bill creates a new offence—careless driving. I do not like the careless driving clause. I should much have preferred a speed limit, because there the offence is one of fact, and not one of opinion. Careless driving, or, for the matter of that, dangerous driving, is very largely a matter of opinion, and must rest to a great extent upon evidence which under some conditions may be very unsatisfactory, and the motorist may be in a position of considerable difficulty under this Bill. His number may be taken by some individual, and he may not know for three weeks that this has happened and then he will only get the most sketchy details of what the charge is against him. Under those conditions it would be almost impossible to secure witnesses. Any one of your Lordships who happens to drive a motor car may subsequently find yourself suffering from this very clause. I would infinitely prefer to be charged upon a, question of fact rather than upon a question of opinion.

The Bill goes on to define and prescribe punishment for drunkenness. That is a very good idea, and I personally welcome the clause dealing with it in the Bill. The Bill also stiffens up the procedure in the event of accident, removes the speed limit, and provides a scheme of what is called compulsory insurance. But the only safeguard which the motorist has got under this Act—and here I must express my sincere thanks to the Minister and to your Lordships for having supported the Amendment which I moved to increase the penalty from three to four months in the case of the dangerous driving clause—is that the motorist, if charged, and, if he is perfectly sure that the charge is unjustified, can ask for a trial by jury. I have been informed in private conversation with the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that this will entail the personal attendance of the defendant in court in order to say whether or not he wishes his case to be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction, or to be tried before a jury. That is, from the motorist's point of view, by no means a drawback. I think it is essential that he should attend the court. I think in a case of dangerous driving any motorist who failed to turn up and respond to a charge would show almost that there was a very good prima facie case against him, and that the case should probably be dealt with as severely as the law allows.

The Bill is going to give us a code. The Minister has never said very much about this code which he is going to issue. It will not have the force of law, and we do not know what it is going to contain. We have a rough idea, perhaps, from the first Report of the Royal Commission on Transport, but a great deal will depend on the code which the Minister issues. I hope that that code will be really well considered, and will be drawn up—as I am sure it will be—with the assistance of the expert organisations connected with motoring. But at the same time that code must not only concern the motorist. One of the great defects of the Bill is that, while it is called a Road Traffic Bill, it deals with only one class of traffic. No one deplores more than I do the casualties on our roads to-day. I am perfectly convinced that at least 80 or 90 per cent. of the accidents would not occur if due care were exercised all round. What can we do to bring about a better state of affairs? I submit that we have left one side of the problem completely untouched, and that that will have the effect of allowing large numbers of people to be killed and injured as the years go on—and I am afraid in increasing number—because one of the greatest defects of this Bill is that not one word of it will do anything to reduce the number of casualties on the road.

If the Government had come forward boldly and said: "We must, in the interests of public safety, do something to regulate the pedestrian," I believe that that would have done a great deal to preserve life, and to prevent casualties because, although a large number of accidents take place to-day, I submit to your Lordships that they are not all to be laid at the door of the motor driver. No statistics have been published that could possibly lead to that impression; in fact they all go the other way. Until this or some other Government comes boldly forward and tackles this question, and says that in the interests of public safety the pedestrian must be regulated, I am afraid that the casualty roll will increase as the years go on. That, I think, is a deplorable state of affairs. I wanted by means of my Amendments to try to raise the standard of driving. I ask your Lordships to consider the figures for a moment. I believe that last year there were 7,000 killed and upwards of 200,000 people injured on the roads. I am speaking rather at random; I know the figures definitely for the year before. If you could secure an improvement of only 5 per cent, in the conditions on the roads you would save between 300 and 400 lives automatically.

It is all very well for the Royal Commission to say that tests for drivers are no good. It is all very well for the Minister to come forward, with the weight of the authority of his personal experience and of his Department, and tell us the same thing. But I am convinced that the public will not continue indefinitely to be satisfied and to be put off with an assurance from the Government of the day or the Ministry of Transport that there is nothing in this question of the examination of drivers. Every other country of importance in the world to-day has this examination. Why are we to be regarded as necessarily right and every other country as wrong? I know perfectly well that fault can be found—fault was found in the debates on the Bill and I am not going over that ground again—with existing systems of examination; but the psychological effect of having to pass an examination is a thing to which I attach the greatest possible importance and I moved, or tried to move, on the Report stage a scheme to bring that about. The Minister told me that the scheme could be brought about now It cannot be brought about now because, in my humble judgment, it cannot have the slightest effect unless it operates under the ægis of the Government, and that I am afraid cannot come about now.

I moved various other Amendments at different stages of the Bill to try to secure an improvement in the conditions, but the Minister resisted all the attempts which we made to do things which a, great many people in the motor trade, as he knows well, are tremendously keen about in order to try to improve the conditions. The Minister resisted all of them, and I am perfectly certain that some day or other some Government if not this one—I should have thought that it would come peculiarly well from this one—will have to bring about the regulation of the pedestrian in the interests of public safety. It is left for some Government in the future to do that.

The Bill provides a scheme of compulsory insurance. On the Report stage I characterised this as a half-baked scheme. Apparently, the Minister did not like my description of his scheme as a half-baked scheme. He seemed, if I may so describe it, a little "rattled" by that description of it, and when he replied he informed me that I had always been against a scheme of compulsory insurance and had, therefore, said what I had said. I challenge the Minister to produce any quotation from my utterances from any public, or private, or any other source, that he can think of which will show that I am in any way against a scheme of compulsory insurance. I am not. I am in favour of compulsory insurance but, like the Minister, I realise that it bristles with difficulties. In my humble judgment what we want to bring about is a real scheme of insurance. We do not get that under the Bill. The Minister really has not told your Lordships very much about this scheme of insurance. All we know is that he met the insurance companies and arrived at some sort of arrangement with them; but I should have thought that any arrangement arrived at between a Minister, not of the present but of any Government, and the insurance companies ought to have been explained to Parliament. But the noble Earl has not told us anything about the figures.

He has not told us, for instance, what were the receipts of the insurance companies in respect of third-party insurance and he has not attempted to group them according to the various classes of vehicle. Again, what have the companies paid out in respect of third-party insurance? We would like to know what are the number of cases in which claims could not be recovered in respect of third-party insurance. Unless there are definite figures before it Parliament cannot possibly judge as to whether the premiums which the insurance companies will charge are fair or not. Everything turns upon that. An increase of insurance premiums will simply be an increase in motor taxation. If an increase of motor taxation is occasioned by an increase in insurance premiums every motorist will remember that it was brought about by the present Government, and that they resisted every attempt, so far at any rate as this Bill goes at present, to try to get some sort of information or to try to improve this particular point. I asked the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he could give any sort of safeguard in respect of insurance premiums; if he could tell us definitely whether they will rise or not. He indicated that they probably will rise, but what safeguard has he got? Surely, the Minister is not going to hand over the whole motor world in this country to the insurance companies without some sort of safeguard regarding the question of a rise in premiums?

The insurance companies may tell us that they are paying out too much and that they cannot pay their way. Experts, I believe, have worked it out that the cost of third-party insurance to an insurance company, or rather to an insurer, comes to about £3 per person. There are over one million cars registered in this country to-day. If you multiply that number by the figure I have quoted you have a very large sum. Supposing we are told that the premium will be increased by £1 it means automatically well over £1,000,000 out of the pockets of the motorists of the country. That is a very serious state of things, and I think the Minister ought to be able to explain this scheme of third-party insurance a great deal better than he has done. Moreover, it must be remembered that if the conditions of the policy are departed from in any respect whatever the claim of the individual concerned against the insurance company will be invalidated. The company will not pay it unless the conditions of the policy are strictly adhered to. Not one of us knows how this is going to work. I moved an Amendment on the Report stage to try to ensure that the whole matter would come up for reconsideration two years hence. That was resisted by the Minister. He and his Government have taken the responsibility of resisting that Amendment. I think it would be very much better had he been able to accept that Amendment. It would not have been a wrecking Amendment. It would have given Parliament an opportunity of reviewing the whole question when they had seen exactly how it worked. At present I do not believe that even the Minister has the least idea of that.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships further. I am very much afraid of the effect of the Bill. As I say, I do not think it will do anything to better the conditions on the roads. I believe that the removal of the speed limit without an examination for drivers under the ægis of the Government is a profound mistake and will bring about a condition of mind in certain people which will induce them to put up their average rate of driving. If that should happen it is the opinion of many others besides myself who are well qualified to judge that increased casualties may, and probably will, result. I view that with some concern. I do not like the scheme of compulsory insurance one little bit. I think there are good points about the Bill, but in order not to make a long speech I have merely mentioned those things I wanted to mention. I would like to thank the Minister for the one real concession he made to us in respect of trial by jury. That is most important and I hope the Government will be able to carry the Bill through another place in that form. In conclusion, I would like to add my very humble tribute to the Minister in charge of the Bill and to thank him for his courtesy in dealing with it.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, perhaps I might say one word in reply to the noble Earl. I know that we have not succeeded in satisfying him on this Bill. That, I think, has been fairly obvious to your Lordships during the course of this discussion. I was interested in the Socialist recommendations he made to us with regard to insurance companies, and if he is prepared to develop those and lends us a hand in Socialist insurance business, either by complete public control or taking it over, I dare say he will find many willing helpers on this side of the House and in the other House. We know that the scheme is not perfect, but I think that "half-baked" is an unkind word to apply to it. It has been cooked several times, and very carefully considered, and I am inclined to think that on the whole it will work well. I cannot prophesy, and I always said I could not prophesy, what effect if any it might have on premiums, and we shall have to bear, no doubt, as he says, the responsibility, such as it is, if premiums are raised. I know that in regard to this matter and in regard to speed limits, tests for drivers and all the other matters which the noble Earl has mentioned, he thinks that he could have produced a very much better Bill than the Government have. Well, I am sorry, but I regret that we do not agree with him, and I am glad to think that on the whole, as the course of the debates showed, your Lordships do not agree with him. He has now, like Cassandra before the house of Agamemnon, made a farewell speech, in which he has cried, "Woe! Woe!" and, as he has given me at any rate the relief of not putting any more Amendments on the Paper, he will now, like Cassandra, retire into the house of Agamemnon and I suppose not be heard of again.

On Question, Bill read 3^a.

Title: An Act to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads and vehicles thereon, to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, to amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles, and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK had given Notice to move to omit all words after "1909." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to move this Amendment in slightly different form. I put it down to leave out all words after "1909" to the end of the Title, and I should like to move it so as to leave out the words "to amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles." I know it is not usual to move an Amendment without Notice on Third Reading in your Lordships' House, but I had hoped that possibly the greater might include the less. I shall move to delete the words already on the Paper and, with the permission of your Lordships, they might be allowed to stand as I have suggested. However, if your Lordships do not agree I am prepared to move my Amendment as it stands.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope my noble friend will move it as it stands on the Paper. I am afraid the rule is very rigid.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

The object of this Amendment is obvious. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage you rejected Part V of the Bill as it came to this House originally, and this part of the Title has to do with Part V as we originally saw it, and Part V only. I think it would be very unfitting for your Lordships to send down a Bill to another place in such an untidy condition as it would be in if it left your Lordships as it now is. You would have in the Title a reference to a Part which does not appear in the Bill. I feel sure the noble Earl opposite will accept this Amendment. He would no more than any of your Lordships like to send down a Bill to another place in an improper condition, and I think he will thank me far helping him to put his Bill into proper order.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, you deleted the Part of the Bill which gave some additional omnibus powers to local authorities which already had statutory powers, and I very much regret that your Lordships took that step. I think it was a very serious and a very unfortunate step, and the Minister feels very strongly about it, but in the circumstances I cannot, I suppose, very well resist the Amendment to amend the Title. I think, however, this Amendment is mistaken in the extent to which it goes, because this Bill, apart from the words to amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles, does amend the law concerning the licensing powers of local authorities, and it is, I think, important to retain the words "and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." I am not as conversant with the rules of order about Third Reading Amendments as the noble Marquess opposite, but I think it would be in order for me to move to amend the Amendment, and if so I should move to amend it by limiting it to the words "to provide public service vehicles" which would cover, I think, everything the noble Earl has in mind, and would still leave the Title intelligible. If you leave out all those words you are leaving out a good deal which is connected with other matters in the Bill and which does not follow on what your Lordships did.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I must not of course arrogate to myself the right to pronounce proprio motu on the Orders of your Lordships' House, but I must say that. I think it is very important that this rule should be maintained. I cannot make the same speech which I am afraid I have made countless times upon this matter—the serious question of moving what is in fact an Amendment without Notice on the last opportunity which the House has of dealing with the Bill. I need not tell your Lordships that I am entirely in favour of my noble friend's Amendment, and I think the best plan would be to proceed with the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. I cannot believe that a very serious thing would happen to the Bill if those words were stuck out, as my noble friend proposes to strike them out, but I should be very averse from an alteration of the words as they stand upon the Paper.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, may I say one word in regard to the general principle? I do not know that the principle to which the noble Marquess has referred has been carried to the extent that you could not amend words upon the Paper. I quite understand it might come within the danger zone, but there are certain circumstances in which I think it would be impossible to maintain that position. There might be circumstances in which it would be the right thing from every point of view to amend words, but in the particular case I should leave the matter as it stands, though I should not like to be thought to assert the principle in the very wide terms in which the noble Marquess stated it.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I can only say a word by leave of your Lordships. I understand the noble Marquess to say that he would prefer to have the Amendment agreed to as it stands on the Paper. I must say I think that will be embarrassing from the point of view of giving a proper Title to the Bill, and I am rather surprised the noble Marquess should wish to cause that embarrassment. I have offered to meet the noble Earl opposite on what I think is his real point, and he was willing to move the Amendment without these additional words. I take it he would have no objection to the words at the end "and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." I should not have thought it out of order to move to amend it now, but I do not profess to be as expert on that matter as the noble Marquess opposite. If your Lordships feel it would be impossible to alter the Amendment at all I should rather hope you would not accept it.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, we are in a real difficulty if we are to adhere to the strict letter of the interpretation of the general rule that there should be no Amendment on Third Reading which is not on the Paper. It is quite evident that a Bill of this complexity must always include in its Title the words "for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." Those words are really almost necessary as part of the Title of the Bill. The Amendment of the noble Earl proposes to leave them out as well as certain other words. The noble Earl proposes to omit words with regard to public vehicles and also the "other matters aforesaid," and the noble Earl who represents the Government hats suggested that part of the Amendment should be accepted but not the whole. This is not a case in which entirely new words are going to be left out or added to the Bill. This is not an Amendment which is not on the Paper of the House at all, and the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, has suggested that we should accept the first half and not the second half. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that even the "tithe of mint and anise and cummin" is almost regarded in this case. We accept the first half and not the second half, both being on the Paper of your Lordships' House.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, it would be very unfortunate if the technical rule which undoubtedly exists were to prevent your Lordships' House carrying out what I think is the obvious desire of the vast majority of your Lordships—namely, to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Surely by general consent the strictness of the rule could be waived to carry out the general desire of the House. I trust that may be done.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not know whether you will allow me on the point of order to address the House again. I have already spoken, but I hope that with your indulgence I may be allowed to say another word or two. I feel a difficulty with regard to what has just fallen from my noble friend who sits behind me. I hope that the idea that the rules of the House can be waived in this respect upon pressure will not be encouraged. I hope not, because once you start waiving a rule you may waive every rule. That is a most dangerous doctrine. I am much more impressed with the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, put it just now. I feel it is very dangerous to infringe a rule at all, and therefore I am going to make a proposal which I hope will be accepted. I suggest that we should do as the noble Earl opposite suggested, but it is so important that we should have the rule absolutely right that I suggest that some time within a brief period there should be a conference between noble Lords who have special influence in the House, or even if necessary a Committee of the House, in order to settle definitely exactly how the rule ought to run so that there should never again be any more doubt about it whatever. I think I see indications that that suggestion is assented to, and if so I will not stand in the way of an arrangement on the present occasion.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, may I make a suggestion in the interests of order, a suggestion which I think ought to avoid even the technical waiving of the rule? The noble Earl has an Amendment on the Paper, but I take it that in point of fact he could move only part of the Amendment. Let him move the Amendment in two parts of which the first part is agreed to, and then when the second part is moved that would be disagreed to. We should then, I think, preserve the rule even technically.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move the first part of the Amendment I have on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Lines 13 to 15, leave out ("to amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, I do not move the second part of my Amendment.

Clause 4:

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

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "stop and". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this raises the point which I mentioned to your Lordships on a previous occasion about a police constable being in uniform. In the clause which we inserted, I think on Report, the words "stop and" were included. It is important that the constable acting under the provisions of Clause 4 should be able to act whether in uniform or not. This Amendment is to leave out the words "stop and" and we propose to insert later in the Bill another quite separate clause concerning a constable in uniform who stops a car.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, leave out ("stop and").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 7 [Provisions as to disqualifications and suspensions]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, this Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("if") to the second ("to") in line 29, and insert ("the court think that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case a fine would be an adequate punishment for the offence") Page 10, line 30, after the first ("and") insert ("such").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 14:

Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads.

14. If without lawful authority any person drives a motor vehicle on to or upon any land not forming part of a road, or on any road being a bridleway or footway, he shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that—

1. (a) it shall not be an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land; and
2. (b) a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the car was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.

EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out "land not" and insert "common land, moor land or other land of whatsoever description not being land". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to call special attention to common land and moor land in connection with this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 13, leave out ("land not") and insert ("common land, moor land or other land of whatsoever description not being land").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert as a new subsection:— (2) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section affects; the law of trespass to land or any right or remedy to which any person may by law be entitled in respect of any such trespass. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to insert a new subsection which I hope will meet the point raised by the noble Earl opposite.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for proposing this new subsection. I think it entirely meets the point which I raised. Really there was nothing wrong I think in the Bill, but it is desirable that it should be made perfectly clear. There is one other point I should like to raise. I do not want to be meticulous but I should like to ask whether the words "the law of trespass" include any steps that may be taken under the Law of Property Act. I take it for granted that is so.

EARL RUSSELL

I think so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsection:— ( ) if it is proved that any person who is charged with an offence under this section has in the course of committing that offence driven recklessly or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous he shall be guilty of an offence under Section eleven of this Act. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not think me ungrateful in moving this Amendment because I am really very grateful to him for Clause 14. It was put in at my instigation I think. It does seem to me, however, that if a person drives dangerously or recklessly on such a place he is only liable to a penalty of £20, whereas under Clause 11 if he does the same thing on the road he is liable "on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds" and so on. Therefore I think that a person who drives in such a manner, though he is not on a road, and, perhaps, scatters people who are enjoying themselves on moor land, ought to be liable to the same penalty. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to extend some of the ordinary provisions of the Bill relating to dangerous driving to places which are not on a public road. We think this would be undesirable and inappropriate because on a moor or on the South Downs you do not expect any great amount of traffic. If anybody is knocked down or injured by a motorist he would still have his ordinary remedy and the motorist would be liable to be charged with manslaughter; but it would be rather embarrassing to extend provisions of the Bill directed to roads with traffic on them to places of this sort. I do not think your Lordships would be wise to put in these words here because it would be difficult to transfer offences which are proper to highways to places which are not highways at all and which might be quite empty sands.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 19 [Limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty]:

EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice of a series of Amendments to subsections (1) and (2), said: My Lords, the object of these Amendments is simply to make it clear that this clause is to cover the case of a driver who is employed on a number of different vehicles in the course of the same period of duty. The Amendments are really drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 18, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("the vehicle") Page 19, line 4, leave out ("the") and insert ("a") Page 19, line 12, leave out ("periods") and insert ("time") Page 19, line 12, leave out ("the") and insert ("a") Page 19, line 15, leave out ("the") and insert ("a") Page 19, line 16, after ("vehicle") insert ("while on a journey") Page 19, line 18, leave out ("the vehicle").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (3):— Any order made under this subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to enable the Minister to vary or revoke any order.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 28, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new subsection:— (5) This section shall not apply to motor vehicles used for fire brigades or ambulance purposes. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I mentioned this point on the last occasion. The Amendment excludes fire engines and ambulances from the provisions of the Bill. A fire brigade might quite easily have several fires in succession and would have to work for a longer period than that which is allowed in the Bill, and this is also possible, although not so likely, in the case of ambulances.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, these words are really quite unnecessary, because these fire brigades and ambulance vehicles do not come within the categories of vehicle in this clause. The clause does not apply to them.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

It is possible that they come under the description of a motor tractor, is it not?

EARL RUSSELL

Oh no; a motor tractor must be a thing that draws something.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Duty to give name and address and power of arrest in certain cases]:

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert as a new subsection:— (3) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a police constable in uniform, and if he fails so to do shall he liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the subsection regarding uniform which I mentioned to your Lordships before.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Restrictions on prosecutions under the preceding sections.

21. Where a person is prosecuted for an offence under any of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating respectively to the maximum speed at which motor vehicles may be driven, to reckless or dangerous driving, and to careless driving he shall not be convicted unless either—

1. (a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration; or
2. (b) within twenty-one days of the commission of the offence a summons for the offence was served on him; or
3. (c) within the said twenty-one days a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner or the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence, 429 but failure to comply with this requirement shall not be a bar to the conviction of the accused in any case where the court is satisfied that—

(1)—(a) neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained within the said twenty-one days, or that (b) there is other reasonable cause for the failure and that the accused has not been prejudiced thereby, or

(2) the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a), after "him," to insert "for an offence under some one or other of the provisions aforesaid." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that a man may be convicted although the constable, when he warned him, did not specify the precise offence for which a charge is ultimately preferred. In many cases, of course, the constable will not be in a position to do so. A man may be charged with two or three different offences, and so long as the constable warned him that he would be reported for a prosecution, that is to be sufficient.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 15, after ("him") insert ("for an offence under some one or other of the provisions aforesaid").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, immediately after paragraph (c), to leave out "but failure" and to insert—" Provided that—(i) failure." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment and of the Amendment which appears next upon the Paper is to make it clear that the onus of proving compliance with the requirements does not rest on the prosecution—that is to say, they will be assumed to have been complied with unless the defence prove the contrary. Of course this provision will really operate in the interests of the motorist, because, if it were not here, it would be necessary in every case to call the police official from headquarters or elsewhere who had issued the notice or summons, which would add expense. It merely means that the onus is shifted, not that there is any difficulty in the proof if, in fact, the notice has not been given.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 27, leave out ("but failure") and insert ("Provided that—(i) failure").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 39, after ("failure")—insert ("and (ii) the requirement of this section shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.")—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22:

Duty to stop in case of accident.

(2) If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address, or if the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurs was not in charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall report the accident at a police station or to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof.

EARL RUSSELL had given Notice of three Amendments to subsection (2) which would make the subsection read as follows:— If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid the driver of the motor vehicle for any reason does not give his name and address to any such person as aforesaid he shall report the accident at a police station or to a police constable as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof. The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the first ("the") in line 12. Page 21, line 12, leave out ("to") and insert ("for any reason does not") Page 21, line 13, leave out from ("address") to ("shall") in line 15, and insert ("to any such person as aforesaid he").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 25 [Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I have two drafting Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved— Page 23, line 28, after ("locomotives") insert ("or to bear heavy locomotives") Page 23, line 33, leave out ("as the case may be").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30:

Regulations.

30.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act, and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally as to the construction and use of motor vehicles and trailers and otherwise for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make regulations with respect to any of the following matters: —

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "construction and." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and that which follows on the Paper are intended to reproduce the corresponding provision in Section 6 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896.

Amendments moved— Page 27, line 5, leave out ("construction and") Page 27, line 6, after ("trailers") insert ("on roads, their construction and the conditions under which they may be so used").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 35:

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

(4) This Part of this Act shall not extend to vehicles owned by local authorities, by police authorities or by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or to invalid carriages, nor shall this Part of this Act apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles the use of which, is authorised or regulated by special Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act, unless the special Act or order so provides.

LORD SWAYTHLING moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "or to invalid carriages." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may remember that I raised this question on previous occasions. My reason for putting down this Amendment again is that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill stated in replying to me on a previous occasion that he would consider this Amendment if I could produce figures that would show that invalid carriages were responsible for a number of accidents to third parties. I have consulted a large number of the leading insurance companies with regard to this matter and unfortunately they all inform me that they are unable to give any figures, owing to the fact that in their records they do not differentiate between this class of motor vehicle and any other class. Nevertheless they are absolutely unanimous in saying that invalid carriages should not be excluded from compulsory third-party insurance.

They point out that these carriages go at a much greater speed than formerly, and in fact, in a Schedule to this Bill in its present form, they are permitted to go at a speed of twenty miles an hour. They consider that the case of a man or child knocked over by one of these invalid carriages and killed or injured is one which is as much entitled to compensation as the case of those knocked over by a car or lorry. They point out further that, in the nature of things, these carriages are driven by invalids—people who may be more liable to sudden fainting fits or weakness than drivers of other vehicles. I am informed that a number of them are now insured voluntarily, and I understand that the premium charged by the companies is small in comparison with that applying to other vehicles. I sincerely hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble Earl will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 31, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("or to invalid carriages").—(Lord Swaythling.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I resisted this Amendment before, and I am afraid that I must resist it now. The noble Lord says that he is unable to produce any evidence, but none the less he is sure that these carriages do a great deal of damage. The majority of these carriages are rather light vehicles and, as I pointed out to your Lordships before, they are driven by people who are already in an unfortunate condition, and we were not anxious to burden them even with the comparatively small cost of compulsory insurance. I do not know what view your Lordships will take. We do not think that there is a sufficient case for including these vehicles. We have nothing to show that they do, in fact, cause any damage for which people cannot recover. It is fair to add that in the Schedule we have raised the maximum speed of these vehicles from sixteen to twenty miles an hour, which gives them a certain added danger. I am inclined, on the whole, to leave it to your Lord- ships and I should prefer that your Lordships did not insert it. I should be glad to have an expression of opinion from any noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 36:

Requirements in respect of policies.

36.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (b) insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability by way of damages 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:

EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "by way of damages" and, after "them," to insert "otherwise than under contract." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet an Amendment put in, I think, at the instance of Lord Danesfort. I think the point which the noble Lord was aiming at was to prevent the bringing in of any contractual liability, and we propose to leave out the words "by way of damages" and to insert, after "them" in the first line of page 32, "otherwise than under contract." I think that that meets exactly the point raised, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.

Amendments moved— Page 31, line 40, leave out ("by way of damages") Page 32, line 1, after ("them") insert. ("otherwise than under contract")—(Earl Russell.)

LORD DANESFORT

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think the Amendments, in view of one which was agreed to on the Report stage, will meet the case which I put forward—namely, liability under contract. If the noble Earl assures me that it will meet that case, I agree.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, I do not quite appreciate what the difficulty is. I agree that you should leave out "by way of damages," if you wish to, but why do you want to put in the words "otherwise than under contract"? A person may be insured, and sometimes is, against liability under contract, and why should a, policy not be a policy under the Act when you are insured against a liability which is incurred by way of contract?

EARL RUSSELL

The Government do not themselves think the words are necessary, but Lord Danesfort attached importance to them, and the instance which he gave was some case of two partners, A and B, one of whom was under contract to pay the other £1,000 if he were injured by a motor accident. The suggestion which the noble Lord made was that if you did not exclude such contractual obligations, the insurance company might be liable to pay such damages.

LORD ATKIN

The policy must be a policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred otherwise than under contract. It looks as though, if it did cover liability under contract, the policy would not be within the Act.

EARL RUSSELL

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow that to be considered in another place.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 40:

Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.

40.—(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 guilty of an offence:

Provided that, if the driver of a motor vehicle within five 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 under this subsection of the offence of failing to produce his certificate.

(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 at the time 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, he shall be guilty of an offence:

LORD SWAYTHLING moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "person," to insert "or by his duly authorised representative." The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may remember that this Amendment has already been twice moved during the consideration of this Bill. On both occasions the noble Earl promised to consider it. I have put it down on this occasion in the hope that, having considered it, he will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 20, after ("person") insert ("or by his duly authorised representative").—(Lord Swaythling.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, we have considered it again very carefully, and I regret that I am still unable to accept it. The circumstances in which a person might be properly covered when driving a motor are various. He might be covered under the policy of the owner of the motor car, which permitted it to be driven by the owner or a licensed driver. He also might be covered under a personal policy, which authorised him to be insured while driving his own or any other car. There are still other ways in which he might be covered. It is necessary, if he has not got his insurance certificate with him, that he should attend in person to explain the circumstances, if there are any ambiguous circumstances. It should be remembered that we are here granting an indulgence to a man who prima facie has committed an offence, and I think that any little extra trouble in putting himself right must be borne by him.

EARL HOWE

Before this question passes from here, may I ask the noble Earl whether it will be competent for any police officer or police force to have an examination or to stop cars wholesale, as they do now, in order to examine insurance certificates, or will it only be done in cases of accident?

EARL RUSSELL

Of course it will be possible for a constable to stop a car to ascertain whether, for instance, the driver has his driving licence, whether the tail light is burning, and whether the driver has his certificate of insurance. We are not proposing to take away any powers of the police, and if they think well to have general hold-ups, I think they will be well advised to do so. I think it would be a good thing if there were more of these general roundups in the country.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), after "constable," to insert "or to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required its production." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this really gives an opportunity to the motorist to avoid going to the police station. He may produce his certificate of insurance, at the time of any occurrence on the road, either to the police constable or, if there is not one there, to a person who has reasonable grounds for wishing to see it. That will relieve him of the necessity of stopping and reporting at the police station.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 35, after ("constable") insert ("or to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required its production").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

The next Amendment is one of those relating to the renumbering of the clauses.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 7, leave out ("thirty-three") and insert ("thirty-five").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Application to Scotland]:

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 19, leave out ("thirty-four") and insert ("thirty-five").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44:

Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of users of highways.

44.—(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) Before such directions are issued under this section, they shall be 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 or 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.

(4) 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."

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "issue," and insert "prepare a code (in this section referred to as the 'highway code') comprising." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this clause we come to the highway code, and I have now put on the Paper a form of assent which I think meets the views expressed by the noble Marquess. The first Amendment is to leave out "issue" and to insert instead "prepare a code (in this section referred to as the 'highway code') comprising." Then later on these is an Amendment which deals with the affirmative Resolution.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 25, leave out ("issue") and insert ("prepare a cede (in this section referred to as the 'highway code') comprising").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next Amendment is to add words to subsection (1).

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 27, after ("roads") insert ("and may from time to time revise the code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions thereof in such manner as he thinks fit").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and to insert:— (2) The highway code and any alterations proposed to be made in the provisions of the code on any revision thereof, shall, as soon as prepared by the Minister, be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses. (3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister shall cause the code and every revised edition of the code to be printed and issued to the public at a price not exceeding one penny for each copy. The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will notice that these new subsections make provision that the code, when it has been prepared, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not be issued until the code, or the proposed alterations, have been approved by both Houses. That, I think, meets the views of the noble Marquess opposite.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 28, leave out subsections (2), (3), and (4), and insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Russell.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I think this Amendment is a great improvement, and I am obliged to the noble Earl for having moved it. There is one point on which I am not quite clear. The code is to be laid before Parliament. Supposing somebody wishes to amend one small section of the code, will he be able to do it by Resolution of either House of Parliament, or must the code as a whole be accepted, so that, it will not be possible for members of either House of Parliament to secure an amendment of a small detail?

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the whole object of this Amendment was to get rid of the very inconvenient point as to modifications, and your Lordships will see how very inconvenient that is. The code deals with a vast number of subjects, upon almost all of which everybody holds a different opinion. If you were to discuss it in detail and by way of amendment when it came before both Houses of Parliament, it would take nearly as long as this Bill has taken, and it is quite certain, I think, that the two Houses of Parliament would not make the same Amendments in it. So you would be in a hopeless position: it would be approved with Amendments of one sort by one House, and with Amendments of another sort by the other House. We think it essential that it should be approved or disapproved as a whole. Any strong opinion expressed showing that some part of the code was undesirable or unnecessary would probably lead to the Minister, who is always amenable to Parliamentary pressure, bringing up alterations.

LORD ATKIN

My Lords, I cannot help thinking that this is a, very important alteration in the proposal. When this matter was discussed in Committee it was pointed out that this proposed code formed perhaps the most important part of the whole Bill, for the simple reason that the provisions in the code might, and probably would, seriously effect the existing right, both of pedestrians and drivers, over the highways, because it is provided that a breach of the code may afford evidence of negligence. When one considers the proposed draft code suggested by the Commissioners, provisions will be found there with very far-reaching effects. There is one provision, for instance, that pedestrians should keep to the footpaths. There is another provision, on the other hand, that motorists should keep to the left of the highway. Those are matters which are certainly interferences with the existing right of the pedestrian on the one hand and the motor driver on the other, and might result in a very serious interference with good driving and with the safe conduct of people on the road, and might be a very serious restriction on pedestrians, especially in the country. Those are only examples.

But the reason given by the noble Earl for withdrawing what had been agreed to by the House—namely, that such a code should not be passed until it had gone through both Houses of Parliament, which would have power to agree upon modification—seems to me to mark a very serious step. The code, as he points out, would deal with multifarious items, covering a very large number of matters, and the result would be that if one of these matters were brought into discussion in the code, and either House strongly objected to it, it could not give effect to its view without rejecting the whole of the code. It seems to me that that is a very inconvenient proposal, because there is no power of amendment at all. There is a very easy mode which has been adopted on other occasions of dealing with proposals which have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, by having a Joint Committee of both Houses, to which it would be very easy to refer such a code as this. I, for my part, would much prefer the old provision, if, in fact, the result of this Amendment is to be that this House is to be debarred from expressing its opinion upon one, two, three, or half-a-dozen items of the code, and cannot give effect to its desire for an alteration unless the code as a whole is rejected.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I should like most strongly to support what the noble and learned Lord has said. In my time in Parliament I have had experience of several instances where matters have been presented to Parliament and we have been told that we must take them as a whole, but we could not amend them. If you cannot amend this code its whole value will be reduced. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about a Joint Committee of both Houses, and I should have thought that that would afford a way out. I was on the point of asking the Minister what opportunity would be afforded to any member who desired to make any particular Amendments in the code. I do hope very much that the Minister will be able to make this a little more elastic than it is at present.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I very much regret that Cassandra has again escaped from the house of Agamemnon. The noble and learned Lord who took exception to this provision is an authority to whom one would always pay very great regard in any matter of law, but he is perhaps not so completely familiar with Parliamentary procedure as some of your Lordships, and perhaps he does not realise how extremely inconvenient this would be. I succeeded, as I understood, in convincing the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition that the clause in this form would be quite satisfactory, and I was not aware that any questions were to be raised upon it. I think the suggestion that has been made of a discussion on each item of the code in both Houses is quite impracticable. The result would be that you would get nothing, or, if you got something, it would be perfectly pale and colourless, and of no use at all. You must remember that before the Minister produces the code he will have had conference after conference, and meeting after meeting, with all those concerned. The form of the code would probably be discussed in the Press of the country, and it would come before your Lordships as a finished article, or at any rate as finished as the Minister of Transport was able to make it, and I do not think it unreasonable that you should apply the ordinary rule that you apply to anything else.

The noble and learned Lord speaks of it as if it were going to be a code of Statute law, by which people were to be bound, but it is not going to be anything of the sort. It is going to be advice to people, and the only legal effect it will have is that evidence of breaches of it may be given in court for what they are worth, and they would be worth just as much as the court thought fit. They are merely evidence that you have done something which the majority of people have come to the conclusion you ought not to have done. But it is not a code of law, and the method of shaping it in a Joint Select Committee is really going to make it into a separate Act of Parliament. That is not in the least the thing the Minister had in mind when he put this provision into the Bill. It has already grown very much beyond what was intended, and your Lordships must not found yourselves on the suggestions contained in the Appendix to the Royal Commission, became non constat that that or any of it will necessarily be adopted in the code. I hope that as I have done all I can to satisfy your Lordships you will accept it in what is now a reasonable Parliamentary form.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 [Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the Amendments to this clause are really drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 38, leave out lines 42 to 44.

Page 39, line 23, at end insert as a new subsection: ("(8) In the case of the City of London an application under this section may be made by the common council of the City.").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46:

Erection of notice boards, etc.

46.—(1) A highway authority may as respects any road for the maintenance of which they are responsible cause or permit to be erected, placed or displayed in conformity with such general or special directions as may be given by the Minister, signals, warning sign posts, direction posts, signs, or devices for the guidance of drivers of vehicles and of other persons using roads which shall be of such size, colour, and type as may be prescribed:

(4) A highway authority shall, if so directed by the Minister, remove or require to be removed any signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign or device, and if the highway authority fails to comply with any such direction, the Minister may him- self effect the removal, and may recover summarily as a civil debt from the highway authority the expenses incurred by him in so doing.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "displayed," to insert "subject to and". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the Minister's directions may deal with the conditions under which the powers are to be exercised as well as the nature and design of the signs and signals.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 26, after ("displayed") insert ("subject to and").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), after "device," to insert "or any such object as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to enable misleading objects to be removed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 24, after ("device") insert ("or any such object as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49:

Provisions with respect to stretching of ropes, etc., across roads.

49. Any person who for any purpose places or causes to be placed any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway or any part thereof in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway shall, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, be guilty of an offence.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add the words: "Nothing contained in this subsection shall preclude a person from being charged with any criminal offence which he is alleged to have committed." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have been legally advised that this is the usual sort of proviso which appears in similar sections in other Acts. Its object is to make sure that if manslaughter or any other matter of a criminal nature occurs the prosecution can still take place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved an Amendment of this sort in Committee—I forget for the moment who it was—was also apparently under the apprehension that the effect of this clause would be to relieve a man from a charge of manslaughter. That, of course, is not so, and the words which the noble Viscount proposes to insert are quite unnecessary. The clause could not possibly have that effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53:

Power of highway authorities to erect and light street refuges.

53. Every local authority which is a highway authority within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, may, for the purpose of protecting traffic along the road from danger or of making the crossing of any road less dangerous to foot passengers, erect, light, maintain, alter and remove places of refuge in any road vested in the authority.

EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out "local authority which is a"; to leave out "within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909," and insert "and every urban district council in which the functions of maintaining and repairing a county road are for the time being vested"; and, at the end of the clause, to insert "or council." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments should be considered together and with those proposed to be made in Clause 54. The object is to enable the Minister to make grants from the Road Fund to an urban district council in respect of the erection and lighting of refuges on county roads without making the urban council the highway authority generally. In the Local Government Act of last year the county council was deliberately retained as the highway authority in respect of such roads although they are actually vested in the urban authority which exercises all the functions of a highway authority. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 43, line 9, leave out ("local authority which is a"). Page 43, Line 10, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") in line 11, and insert ("and every urban district council in which the functions of maintaining and repairing a county road are for the time being vested") Page 43, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("or council").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 54 [Advances from Road Fund]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the Amendments to this clause are to the same effect. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 43, line 24, leave out subsection (2). Page 43, line 30, after ("include") insert ("the following works, that is to say") Page 43, line 32, after ("roads") insert ("and advances may be made out of the Road Fund towards the costs incurred by the council of an urban district in connection with the execution of any such works in a county road vested in that council").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 55:

Provision of footpaths.

55. It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control.

LORD DANESFORT moved, at the end, to insert "and to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of persons travelling on horseback a strip of land safe and suitable for persons so travelling on the side of the roads under their control." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the earlier part of Clause 55 provision is made for ensuring so far as possible the safety of pedestrians by providing them with footpaths. The object of my Amendment is to ensure a measure of safety for those travelling on horseback by giving them a strip of road on which it is safe to ride.

The present situation is an absolutely deplorable one. Twenty years ago it was possible for horsemen to travel along roads in comfort and security. In those days on most of the main roads and the country roads there were strips of grass at the sides on which horses could travel in safety. Even where there was no side grass the roads themselves both in wet and dry weather were such that horses could keep their feet and safely travel. To-day all that is changed. Many main roads and many country roads have been widened in the interests of motorists, and the grass formerly on the sides of the roads has either been abolished or rendered impassable. The roads themselves, especially the main roads, have been laid down with smooth, hard, and slippery surfaces on which, when there is a slight frost or a sprinkling of rain, it is exceedingly difficult for horses to keep their feet. The same is the case with regard to the new roads; perhaps it is even more so on them than on the old roads which have been widened.

In those circumstances one may ask: What is the horseman to do? He may ride on the footpath and in that case he can be prosecuted and fined. On the other hand, he may ride on the road and in that case he mans a grave risk of injuring either himself or his horse or both. I hesitate to trouble your Lordships with any personal experience but, as a matter of fact, I have had more than one fall in those circumstances. The horse has slipped and I have had an unpleasant fall, and I may think myself lucky that I am here to-day. I doubt not that many of your Lordships have had similar experiences. I hope that your Lordships, and certainly that the Minister in charge, will not consider that the persons for whom I plead are a small or unimportant class. There are, in the first place, thousands of people, both men and women, who ride on horseback to the meets of this country in the winter time, whose grooms have long rides home in the evening. Besides that class, which numbers many thousands, there are in many parts of the country numerous persons such as farmers and doctors who find riding more convenient and possible for the purposes of their business than motoring. These people for whom I speak live in the country. They pay a large proportion of the rates in their own localities. They pay their proportion of taxes which are not free from burden, and I think that they can with reason demand that some small portion of the enormous sums spent on the roads, which would only be a very insignificant portion, should be applied to enable them to exercise their undoubted common law right of having the roads in such a state that they may proceed along them in safety on horseback.

I am not going to trouble your Lordships with legal arguments, but those who are curious in this matter might remember —I am sure the noble Earl with his legal knowledge will remember—that in Haw-kin's Pleas of the Crown and other books of great authority the highway is laid down as being a place for all the liege subjects to pass and repass on foot and on horseback with their cattle and carriages. It may very well be a question, if the road is in such a condition that it is impossible for horses to pass in safety along it, whether the highway authority could not be indicted for a nuisance. Be that as it may, I ask your Lordships to look at it from a much broader view and say: "Here is a large class of His Majesty's subjects who pay large sums for the upkeep of the roads, and they have a right to have the roads in such a state that they can travel in safety upon them." The expense of carrying out such an Amendment as I have put down would be exceedingly small and I hope, following what the noble Earl has already done with regard to pedestrians, he will give a similar concession to horsemen.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Danesfort.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will favourably consider the Amendment which has been brought forward by my noble friend who I hardly think has exaggerated the case. I do not know if the noble Earl is willing to put the Amendment in the Bill as it stands or, failing that, whether he will agree to make representations to the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Transport. My noble friend Lord Danesfort has shown that from every point of view it is desirable that some consideration should be given to those who use the highways from the equestrian point of view. The noble Earl will agree that we very often read in the newspapers that accidents have occurred by reason of the slippery surfaces of roads which have been made for the benefit of motorists. I think the usual practice is for horsemen to use the paths, and for that of course the horsemen may be indicted, but I am not sure that a conviction would be obtained against them. Your Lordships will agree that the present is an undesirable state of affairs, and that it would be advisable for words to be inserted in the Bill such as those suggested by my noble friend, so that, wherever it is considered necessary and desirable in the interests of safety, some portion of the roads should be set apart for those who use the highways as equestrians.

As my noble friend has pointed out, this is not a provision which would benefit only a very small portion of the community. It is quite true that those who ride on horseback are fewer than they used to be; in fact it may perhaps be said that they are a diminishing class of the community; but they do represent all sections of the community. There are a great many men in this country who earn their livelihoods by looking after and tending horses, and it is their duty on occasions to ride along these very slippery high roads which constitute a great danger. I feel there is great substance in the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, and that he is entitled to receive the sympathy of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I sincerely hope the noble Earl will see his way to meet us in some manner.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I hope he will consider that there are a great many noble Lords on this side of the House who will be very sympathetic towards this Amendment not only because there are a great many people interested in agriculture, but also because there are other classes of the community interested in this question. There is no doubt that in the provision of these main roads all over the country there is a great danger of people having to give up riding altogether. Only the other day the brother of a noble Lord who is a very prominent member of this House was killed in an accident on one of these main roads through the slipperiness of the road, and it is for such a reason as that, I think, that we ought to look after those who ride as well as those who walk. The noble Earl was most sympathetic in the case of the pedestrians, and he must remember that that is a diminishing "industry," and that the horse industry is a very great industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, talked about having had a fall. I might say that was no fault of his, because we all know he has been in his time and is still a very great horseman. He won the Bar Point to Point I believe three times in succession. I do not think that is a very bad record. There is another point of view which I think the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, might also have mentioned, only that he does not always think about himself. He is an owner of race horses and there is nothing more painful than to see these very valuable animals slithering about on one of these greasy roads unable to get a foothold. It is most deplorable. The noble Earl opposite knows there is a great deal of money invested in this country in race horses. After all, the interests of that class of the community should be considered; I mean those who live by the "sport of kings." I would point out that this Amendment is not a mandatory one, but is simply to call the attention of those who are making new roads to the desirability of doing this. I do not think any harm can be done by accepting the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment said he was speaking for a class which was neither small nor unimportant. I quite agree as to their importance; in fact it seems to me nowadays to be a very distinguished thing to ride upon a horse at all, because I think the class is small and not because it is a large class. But one has seen these constant complaints, not ill-founded, about the greasy condition of the very smooth roads from the point of view of the horse rider. The noble Lord realises as well as anybody that the sort of Rotten Row he asks for alongside these roads would be a matter of very considerable expense, and I did not hear anything from the noble Lord who spoke last as to how much "the sport of kings" would be prepared to contribute to it. Your Lordships know that every motorist has to contribute pretty heavily. However good the case may be for this, I am perfectly certain your Lordships will recognise that to bring it up at this stage of the Bill when it has never been raised before, and when it has been impossible to go into the matter, is really rather unreasonable. We have been able neither to form any estimate as to the places where it is required, the number of occasions when it would be provided, the number of horsemen who are affected or the cost—a very material item.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It is only a recommendation.

EARL RUSSELL

It is true it is only a recommendation, but if you put words into an Act of Parliament you do not, I am sure, intend them to be idle words. You intend them to be regarded with the respect which is due to everything Parliament agrees to. I am sure the noble Lord himself who moved the Amendment will recognise that it is not really very reasonable to bring this forward at this late moment in the history of the Bill and ask me to accept it. I am afraid I cannot do that, but I will do what the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite asked me to do. I will bring the discussion to the attention of the Minister in order that it may be considered. I do not think I ought to be asked to do more than that at this stage.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, if I may be allowed I should like to thank the noble Earl for the suggestion he has made and I should also like to say that I have not the slightest desire to have a sort of Rotten Row by the side of the highway. That would be ludicrous and out of the question on the ground of expense, but even strip of land a couple of yards wide would be a most material help—and I speak in the presence of people who understand this matter thoroughly—to people who ride: doctors, farmers and others. It would really enable people to get over the greater part of the real danger which now arises. If the noble Earl will kindly do as he has promised and bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and explain to him that we do not want the expenditure of tens of thousands of pounds, but only a relatively small sum such as I have indicated, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56:

Regulations.

56.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act is to be prescribed, and for regulating the number, nature and use of brakes, including skid pans and locking chains, in the case of vehicles drawn by horses or other animals, or any class or description of such vehicles, when used on roads, and for securing that such brakes shall be efficient and kept in proper working order and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test and inspect any such brakes, whether on a road or elsewhere, and for making provision for the removal from roads of vehicles in the case of which there has been a breakdown or which have been left in a dangerous position on a road.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), before "for making provision," to insert:— (b) for prescribing the appliances to be fitted to bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, for signalling their approach when used on roads and for securing that the drivers of such vehicles shall by means of such appliances as aforesaid give audible and sufficient warning of their approach; and (c) The noble Earl said: My Lords, by a later Amendment in the Fourth Schedule it is proposed to repeal a part of Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 1888. The paragraph which I move should be inserted here is in substitution for the section which it is proposed to repeal.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 14, after ("and") insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I rise with a more than usual amount of diffidence to address your Lordships on this Amendment, because I am about to cross swords with the noble Earl who is such a master of the English language on a point of grammar. If the noble Earl will read the Amendment he will see that it says "for prescribing the appliances to be fitted to bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, for signalling their approach when used on roads and for securing that the drivers of such vehicles…" Surely the word used should be "riders," not "drivers"?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, I suppose it ought. The noble Marquess has already said we must not amend the words on the Paper at this stage, but no doubt the point can be considered in another place.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57 [Application to Scotland]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 44, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert ("large burgh as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58 [Application of Part IV and classification of public service vehicles]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the first two Amendments are intended to improve the drafting of the definition of an express carriage.

Amendments moved— Page 45, line 37, leave out ("and for a journey or journeys to some one or other common destination") and insert ("none of which is less than one shilling for a single journey or such greater sum as may be prescribed and for a journey or journeys to one or more common destinations") Page 45, line 40, leave out from ("those") to end of line 4 on page 46, and insert ("paying the appropriate fares for the journey or journeys in question").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert the following new subsection:— (3) It is hereby declared that where in pursuance of an offer made to the public persons are carried in a motor vehicle for any journey in consideration of separate payments made by them, whether to the owner of the vehicle or to any other person, the vehicle in which they are carried shall be deemed to be a vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, whether the payments are solely in respect of the journey or not. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this new subsection is to make it clear that a public service vehicle is not to be regarded as a contract carriage if an agent books passengers individually and then hires a vehicle to carry them.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60:

Traffic Commissioners.

(10) A person shall be disqualified for being a Commissioner if he is convicted, either on indictment or summarily, of any crime, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine, or to any greater punishment, or is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors.

(11) If a Commissioner is absent from sittings of the Commissioners for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister, he shall, on the expiration of those months, vacate his office.

(12) Where a Commissioner becomes disqualified for holding office, or vacates his office from absence or otherwise, the Minister shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.

EARL RUSSELL moved to omit subsections (10), (11) and (12) and to insert:— (10) If any person being a Commissioner for any traffic area acquires any financial interest in any transport undertaking which carries passengers within that area he shall within four weeks after so doing give notice thereof in writing to the Minister specifying the interest so acquired, and the Minister after taking the matter into consideration may, if he thinks fit, declare that the Commissioner has vacated his office. (11) The Minister may remove any Commissioner from his office for inability or misbehaviour.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of the Amendment which was put into the Bill I believe at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, dealing with the disqualification of Commissioners. Your Lordships will remember that I said at the time that we did not quite like the wording of the Amendment and I did not think it sounded respectful to the Commissioners. We have thought it better to deal with the question of financial interests in the proposed new subsection (10) and to provide by subsection (11) that the Minister may remove any Commissioner for inability or misbehaviour. Misbehaviour of course would cover all possible cases, including drunkenness and misconduct.

Amendment moved— Page 48, to leave out from the end of line 31 to the end of the clause and insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Russell.)

EARL HOWE

My Lords, may I ask whether the word "misbehaviour" would include any offence committed under this Act such as dangerous driving?

EARL RUSSELL

I should not think so.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for suggesting this Amendment. I think it is much better than the one I moved and it is much wider; but I would like to ask why a period of four weeks should be allowed to a Commissioner before communicating the fact that he is financially interested in a road transport undertaking working in his area. Surely there is nothing to conceal and the time ought to be much shorter—say, one week. I only put that forward for further consideration by the Minister, but a month does seem to me an unduly long time.

EARL RUSSELL

I will have that considered.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64 [Public service vehicle licences]:

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:— and (b) in the case of a service of stage carriages, a vehicle licensed as an express carriage may be used on the service if the Commissioners of each of the traffic areas in which the vehicle is to be so used think that it may in any special circumstances, including the character of the service, properly be so used and consent in writing thereto. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 3, after the second ("carriage") insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 50, leave out lines 7 to 12.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66:

Road service licences.

66.—(1) A person shall not use a vehicle or permit it to be used as a stage carriage or as an express carriage unless he is the holder of a road service licence issued under this Part of this Act or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such a licence.

(3) Subject to any regulations made by the Minister, the Commissioners may attach to a road service licence such conditions as they may think fit with respect to the matters to which they are required to have regard under the preceding subsection and generally for securing the safety and convenience of the public, and in particular for securing that— (d) copies of the time-table and fare-table shall be carried and be available for inspection in vehicles used on the service; and the Commissioners may from time to time vary in such manner as they think fit any condition attached to a road service licence.

(6) A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required nothwithstanding 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 so authorised.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the next three Amendments are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 52, line 5, leave out from ("(1)") to ("is") in line 7, and insert ("A vehicle shall not be used as a stage carriage or an express carriage unless the person operating the vehicle") Page 52, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 9. Page 52, line 41, leave out from ("and") to ("in") in line 1 on page 53.— (Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (d), to insert:— (e) that passengers shall not be taken up except at specified points or shall neither be taken up or set down between specified points; and generally for securing the safety and convenience of the public."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this again is an attempt to define the difference between an express carriage and other carriages. I think that we have now got a definition which satisfies the interests concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 15, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "Parliament." The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Report stage of this Bill your Lordships accepted an Amend- ment of mine which provided that the Commissioners should not be able to interfere with agreements come to under Private Acts of Parliament. The object of this Amendment is exactly the same as the Amendment which I moved then. As I tried to explain on the last occasion, a local authority is not able to run public service vehicles without coming to Parliament for permission. When it does that it is very often convenient for them to obtain permission to run vehicles on some road where some company is already running these vehicles. Some clause is then inserted by the Private Bill Committees which provides that the local authority shall not exercise this power while the company is continuing to do so.

It would explain the matter, perhaps, if I read to your Lordships one of these clauses. In the Merthyr Tydvil Corporation Act, 1920, there is a clause which says:— 37. The Corporation shall not under the provisions of this part of this Act without the consent in writing of the Merthyr Electric Traction and Lighting Company, Limited, run omnibuses along any part of a road along which any light railway of the said Company is at the date of this Act constructed and being worked by them so long as that Company continue to own and work such light railway and continue to provide and maintain thereon such a service of cars as may be reasonably required in the public interests. It seems to me that when Parliament has come to a decision on a point like this it is quite wrong that the Commissioners should be able to override that decision. The noble Lord takes the view, I believe, that they are under contract not to do so and that it is still binding upon them. If he can give me an assurance on that point I will not press my Amendment. Otherwise I am afraid I must press it.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 7, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I do not quite know what assurance the noble Earl wants me to give him. He is as well able to judge of the matter as I am. If some one has entered into a contract there is nothing in this Bill, so far as I know, that will prevent that contract continuing or make the person who has the contract unable to enforce it. But I regret this Amendment, just as I regretted the other Amendments that the noble Earl moved and the excision of Part V from this Bill by your Lordships. In all these matters it seems to me—I say it with great regret, but I cannot help feeling it—that your Lordships have put the private interest before the public interest, have made Amendments that have really been definitely in the interest of the private operator and against the public operator in the shape of a municipality and have, in some respects, worked a definite unfairness to the municipalities. I do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, but the Government cannot accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. The noble Earl has said that your Lordships have not, in his view, been well advised in the line that you have taken regarding these municipal matters. I can assure the noble Earl that we never did a better service to his Bill than when we induced your Lordships not to agree to Part V. The noble Earl has carried this Bill through as we have already said this evening, with great skill, but even his skill is not sufficient to pass finally into law a Bill of its immense complexity, dealing with so many interests and likely to arouse so much legitimate opposition from persons who are vitally concerned. Such a Bill is difficult for any Government to get through, and to lighten it to some extent—even if we did not think, as we did, that Part V and analogous provisions were a mistake—was really a service to the Bill. As regards this particular Amendment, I think the noble Earl will be well advised to accept it. We want to be consistent and, as the House has already passed Amendments in this sense,—

EARL RUSSELL

Which we resisted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No doubt, but it is surely reasonable that the corresponding Amendment should be now inserted. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will agree to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the rest of my Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 54, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("being the holder of a road service licence") Page 54, line 18, leave out ("thereto") and insert ("to the road service licence under which the vehicle is being operated") Page 54, line 19, after ("failure") insert ("in any case") Page 54, line 21, leave out ("he acted with the consent of") Page 54, line 23, after ("committed") insert ("had dispensed with compliance in that case").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I now have to move a number of drafting Amendments transposing the order of this clause and some of the following clauses.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 66 and insert it after Clause 72.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67 [Drivers' and conductors' licences] and Clause 68 [Commissioners to whom, applications for licences to be made]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clauses 67 and 68 and insert them before Clause 75.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 [Duration of licences]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 69 and insert it after Clause 75.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Validity of licences in other areas and backing of licences]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 70 and insert it before Clause 73.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74 [Records of licences]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 74 and insert it after Clause 80.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Regulation of conduct of passengers] and Clause 77 [Regulation of conduct of drivers and conductors]:

Amendment Moved— Leave out Clauses 76 and 77 and insert them before Clause 81.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78 [Appointment of officers]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 78 and insert it after Clause 65.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 85 [Returns to be made by holders of road service licences] and Clause 86 [Particulars to be supplied by licence holders]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clauses 85 and 86 and insert them after Clause 73.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 90:—

Contracts to be void so far as they restrict liability in respect of death or injury to passengers in public service vehicles.

". Any contract for the conveyance of a passenger in a public service vehicle shall, so far as it purports to negative or to restrict the liability of any person in respect of any claim which may be made against that person in respect of the death or bodily injury to the passenger while being carried in, entering or alighting from the vehicle, or purports to impose any conditions with respect to the enforcement of any such liability, be void."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is inserted here in place of Clause 94, which I propose by a later Amendment to leave out.

Amendment moved— After Clause 90, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, I should like to ask one question. Certain companies run omnibuses at cheap fares, like the railway companies, who, I believe, are then under no obligation in respect of death or injury. Would those cheap fares be affected by this clause?

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, that is the object of this clause. It is not thought that it is a desirable practice on the part of the railway companies to limit their liability, as they sometimes do, in cheap trains, and we certainly do not want to introduce it in this new method of road transport. We desire that the persons transporting people by road should remain liable for the full legal liability, whatever it may be, and should not be able to contract out of it. That is precisely one of the objects of this clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 72, s. 3, 4 (b)]:

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 93 and insert it before Clause 84.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 94:

Certain stipulations in insurance policies.

94. Any stipulation purporting to restrict the liability of the holder of any public service vehicle licence or road service licence in respect of any claim which may be made against him as the owner, or as a driver or employer of the driver, of the vehicle in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person who is being carried in or entering or alighting from a public service vehicle, shall be void.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 94.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 98:

Prosecutions and penalties for offences.

(4) Where the owner is charged with any such offence, he shall be entitled upon information duly laid by him, and on giving not less than three days' notice of his intention to the prosecution, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the court at the time appointed for the hearing of the charge, and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the owner proves to the satisfaction of the court that he had used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and that such other person had committed the offence in question without the owner's consent, connivance or wilful default, that other person shall be summarily convicted of the offence, and the owner shall be exempt from any penalty:

Provided that the prosecution shall in any such case have the right to cross-examine the owner if he gives evidence, and any witnesses called by him in support of his charge, and of calling rebutting evidence.

Any person so convicted shall, in the discretion of the court, be also liable to pay any costs incidental to the proceedings.

In the application to Scotland of this subsection the expression "information" shall mean petition or complaint.

EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection is no longer appropriate.

Amendment moved— Page 73, line 16, leave out subsection (4).—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 102 [Special provisions as to Scotland]:

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 2, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("fifty-one").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105 [Repeals]:

EARL RUSSELL moved to add to the clause:— (c) references in any order made under subsection (4) of Section seven of the Roads Act, 1920, to heavy motor cars or to locomotives shall be construed respectively as references to heavy motor cars as defined by this Act and to heavy locomotives and light locomotives as so defined. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that, where under Section 7 (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, the Minister has made an order prohibiting or restricting the use of a road by locomotives or heavy motor cars or both, the order shall have effect as if it had been made applicable to heavy locomotives, light locomotives and heavy motor cars, as the case may be, as defined in this Bill. Otherwise the order would be applicable to classes of vehicles which, after this Bill is passed, would either not exist or be differently defined.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule: