ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 22 January 1930 vol 76 cc73-159

Order of the day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Russell.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not desire to stop the proceedings of your Lordships' House, but I should like to call the attention of the Government to the fact that the Marshalled List of Amendments was not available to your Lordships until very nearly the middle of the day to-day. I am quite certain the noble Earl will acquit me of any desire to bring a charge against him; he is a pattern of courtesy to your Lordships. But he will realise under what difficulties we are about to discuss this very important stage of this Bill when we have not really had the text of the Amendments properly before us. I do not believe that even all the Amendments of the Government were in our hands until an hour or two ago. Of course, we shall do the best we can, but the noble Earl and the Government will not be surprised if the result is that the Third Reading is a rather longer stage than it would otherwise be.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I am very sorry indeed that these Amendments were not available earlier. It was largely due, as the noble Marquess, I think, will realise, to the fact of the Recess, but the majority of the Government Amendments were handed in several days ago. It is, I think, perfectly true that the final Marshalled List of Amendments was not available until this morning, but I think, when your Lordships come to look into the actual Amendments, you will find very few in which difficulty will be caused by that fact. If, when we come to any particular Amendment, a difficulty is pointed out, the noble Marquess knows that I will not press the House to do anything which is unreasonable.

On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 1:

Motor vehicles to which Part I. applies.

1.—(1) This Part of this Act shall apply to all mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads (in this Act referred to as "motor vehicles") and to vehicles (in this Act referred to as "trailers") drawn by motor vehicles: Provided that this Part of this Act shall not apply to tramcars or trolley vehicles the use of which is authorised or regulated by special Act of Parliament or by an order having the force of an Act, unless the special Act or order so provides.

EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "not," to insert "except as hereinafter expressly provided." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is to be read in conjunction with a new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 31. It is in the following terms:—

"Application of Act to driving of tramcars and trolley vehicles. Tramcars and trolley vehicles shall be deemed to be motor vehicles for the purposes of Sections 4 to 9, 11, 12, 14 and 19 to 22 inclusive and for the purpose of Section 9 a tramcar or trolley vehicle shall be deemed to be a heavy motor car and the said sections shall apply accordingly to such vehicles and the drivers thereof. The point was raised at the Committee stage when it was suggested by the Government that this provision is not required for tramcars and trolley vehicles because they are regulated by the Tramways Act, 1870. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did, however, state that if a workable Amendment could be devised he might consider it. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that drivers of tramcars and trolley vehicles must be subject to the same laws for the control of driving as the drivers of other vehicles.

The Tramways Act, 1870, makes no provision of this kind and the need for some provision is indicated by a clause which is now inserted in every Private Bill authorising trolley vehicles. That clause applies Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, with respect to reckless driving and Section 6 as to duty to stop in case of accident and the provisions as to licences. Under the Bill these provisions of the Act of 1903 are now modernised and amplified in Clauses 4 to 9, 11, 12, 14 and 19 to 22. If some such clause is not inserted the law in relation to this class of driver would be left in a very obscure and uncertain condition. It is very much better to make the matter clear by a definite provision in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, after ("not") insert ("except as hereinafter expressly provided").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, you will recollect that this point was raised in Committee. We then pointed out that this Bill is not intended to deal with tramcars and trolley vehicles, and that it is quite unsuitable to do so in it. The provisions that this and the subsequent Amendment of the noble Earl would give effect to would bring such things as dangerous and careless driving and the licensing of drivers and the endorsement of licences within the purview of this Bill, which is really quite unsuitable for them. Your Lordships considered an Amendment similar to this in Committee and I can only say that the view of the Government is that it is impossible to make this Bill deal with this class of vehicle.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Do I understand that tramway drivers who drive in a reckless manner are subject to no penalty whatever?

EARL RUSSELL

The answer to that is, No. If the noble Viscount likes to amend the Tramways Act, or to provide for it in some proper way it can be done. All we say now is that it cannot and ought not to be done in this Bill.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, the London County Council have considered this Amendment, and they wish to offer very strenuous objection to it. They feel that there are ample powers in the Tramways Act to deal with these cases. Tramway drivers have a very stringent examination, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2:

Classification of motor vehicles.

2.—(1) Motor vehicles shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and the regulations, be divided into the following classes: — (e) Motor cars; that is to say, mechanically propelled vehicles (not being vehicles classified under this section as motor cycles or invalid carriages) which are constructed themselves to carry a load or passengers and the weight of which unladen— (i) in the case of vehicles which are—

(2) adapted to carry not more than eight passengers exclusive of the driver; and

(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (e) (i) (2) of subsection (1), to leave out "eight" and insert "seven." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment dealing with the number of passengers in a car, and it merely carries out what has been agreed to in two other places in the Bill. In two other places we substituted "seven" for "eight" in Committee, and we propose to do the same here.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, leave out ("eight") and insert ("seven").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), after "For the purposes of this Part of this Act," to insert:— (a) in any case where a motor vehicle is so constructed that a trailer may by partial super-imposition be attached to the vehicle in such manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the vehicle, that vehicle shall be deemed to be a vehicle itself constructed to carry a load; and The noble Earl said: This is a purely technical matter. It is to provide that where a tractor and a trailer are so attached together by super-imposition as to be practically one vehicle they are not to be considered as a tractor and a trailer, but they are to come within the class of heavy motor cars.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

3.—(1) It shall not be lawful, except in respect of vehicles constructed within twelve months from the coming into force of any regulations made under Section twenty-eight (Regulations) of this Act, to use on any road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with the regulations applicable to the class or description of vehicles to which the vehicle belongs, as to the construction, weight and use thereof: Provided that the Minister may by order authorise, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the use on roads of special motor vehicles or trailers, or special types of motor vehicles or trailers, which are constructed either for special purposes or for tests or trials, and of new or improved types of motor vehicles and trailers whether wheeled or wheel-less.

(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is used on a road in contravention of this section, any person who so uses the vehicle or causes or permits the vehicle to be so used shall be guilty of an offence.

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Subject as hereinafter provided." The noble Earl said: This is really a consequential Amendment upon the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, which was accepted in Committee. It carries out, with the other Amendments which follow on it, the object which he had in view as to the saving for vehicles which were being constructed when a regulation was under consideration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 10, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "constructed within twelve months from" and insert "registered under Section six of the Roads Act, 1920, for use on a road not more than twelve months after." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of an Amendment made in Committee. The intention of the clause is to permit an existing vehicle to be used notwithstanding an alteration in the regulations relating to vehicles of the same class. We think that the term "constructed" is too vague and the Amendment proposes the date of registration as being a date which is definite and readily ascertainable. Since this Amendment was put on the Paper I believe that the Government have given Notice of Amendments which rather meet the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 11, leave out ("constructed within twelve months from") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, this is really covered in a better form by the Government Amendments.

EARL HOWE

Then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "except in respect of vehicles constructed within twelve months from the coming into force of any regulations made under Section twenty-eight (Regulations) of this Act." The noble Earl said: This, again, is consequential upon what I explained to your Lordships just now, and puts Clause 3 into the form which we think is the most useful one.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 10, leave out from ("lawful") to ("to") in line 13.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "weight," to insert "equipment." The noble Earl said: This gives the Minister an additional power as to the equipment of vehicles and will cover such things as carrying reflecting mirrors. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 17, after ("weight") insert ("equipment").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:— (a) a motor vehicle shall not be required to comply with any regulations made after the passing of this Act with respect to the construction or weight of vehicles of the class or description to which the vehicle belongs if the regulations are made during the twelve months immediately preceding the date on which the vehicle was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, or at any time thereafter; and (b)

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this long Amendment is again consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "guilty of an offence" and insert "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to introduce a minor penalty for certain minor offences. There are such things as neglect to renew a licence after it has expired. That is a minor offence. Only the other day I read in the newspapers that a distinguished ex-law officer of the Crown had omitted to renew his driving licence and had consequently suffered a minor penalty. I beg, therefore, to move in the hope that the Government may be able to make this small concession in respect of minor offences. There is already one offence in the Bill for which a penalty of £5 is provided; that is the failure to produce a driving licence when called upon.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out ("guilty of an offence") and insert ("liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds").—(Earl Rowe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, it would be very undesirable indeed to accept this Amendment. Many offences under the regulations may be of quite a serious nature dealing with the construction of cars, and it would be wrong to limit the penalty to a fine of £5, and not to have an increased penalty for repeated offences.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 4:

Licensing of Drivers, etc.

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

(5) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, produce his licence, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a tine not exceeding five pounds: Provided that, if within five days after the production of his licence was so required the licensee produces the licence in person at such police station as may be specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.

(6) A person shall be disqualified for obtaining a licence— (a) if he is under sixteen years of age;

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (2), before "physical fitness," to insert "competence, knowledge and". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I am conscious I brought before your Lordships sitting in Committee, though I have slightly varied its terms in order to meet one of the chief objections raised against it. To make it intelligible your Lordships must read it in connection with the Amendment which stands at the top of the next page and is really part of the same Amendment. It would be simpler perhaps to read the later Amendment— unless he is already the holder of an unendorsed licence satisfy the licensing authority in the prescribed manner that he is competent to drive a motor vehicle with reasonable skill and has an adequate knowledge of the rules of the road and other directions which may be issued by the Minister for the guidance of users of the highway. The only difference between the Amendment that I moved in Committee and this Amendment is that I except from the operation of this provision those who are already the holders of an unendorsed licence.

A good deal was said in Committee about the extreme difficulty of applying this provision to the immense number of people who now hold licences and I felt there was a certain practical force in that, though I thought it could be dealt with by regulations. It is, perhaps, better to say in the body of the Amendment that those people would not be subject to the necessity of getting a licence. It would be for the new people and not for the old people. That distinction between the two classes of driver would disappear, of course, in a comparatively short time and everybody would have to satisfy the competent authorities on these points. As I had the honour of explaining in Committee the reasons why I desire this Amendment to be put in the Bill I do not propose to keep your Lordships very long now. I would merely remind you that the main object is not so much to secure the skill of the driver, though it will have some effect in that direction. I recognise that no examination short of a very elaborate one will secure an absolutely skilful driver; but this will tend to secure him. It will not do more than that. But it will bring home—and this is the real ground and purpose of the Amendment—to those who are beginning to drive a motor vehicle the fact that it is an operation that requires a great deal of skill and care and caution, and that it must not be undertaken in the same way as a person would undertake to drive a governess cart.

It must be recognised that when you are driving an instrument which may at any moment, if a mistake is made, kill your fellow creatures or at any rate seriously injure them, it is a very serious matter and ought to be undertaken with a due appreciation of the responsibility of the occupation. I am sure that is a very essential lesson to teach the drivers who are mainly responsible for the accidents which occur. They are not wicked people. They are very often not a bit more blameworthy than many other people in the country—perhaps, than most people. They are people of a lighthearted and high-spirited nature and do not understand the dangers that they are going to incur. Possibly you will not be able to teach them altogether, but I think you can do something to teach them by this provision. That is the short ground of argument on which I rest the Amendment. But I must remind your Lordships that it has behind it the support and the practice of almost every country in the world except our own. I do not believe there is any serious exception to that statement. Every other country requires some degree of examination before a person can drive a motor car. In some cases it is a severe examination, in others it is not so severe; but in every case it exists. I must further remind your Lordships that on the published figures London—I do not know how far it is true of the rest of the country—is among the most dangerous cities in the world. I believe I am right in saying that there is no more dangerous city in the world as far as motor accidents are concerned. Therefore it may be that there is some connection between the two facts that in every other country there is such an examination and in our country we have a special degree of danger.

Those are the short grounds on which I put this Amendment. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but I venture respectfully to say that, though I am sure this Bill has been introduced with the best possible intentions and may in some of its provisions do good, I cannot help feeling that there is not yet in the Departments of Government a sufficient realisation of the great urgency and the great importance of the evil with which we have to deal. It is true that you will not find so great a reflection of that in the Press, and different reasons may be assigned for that circumstance, but I am quite satisfied that there is a very deep and abiding feeling in the country that the Government—not this Government only but every Government—has failed in one of its great functions, which is to protect the lives and well-being of its citizens, which, after all, is its first business. It has failed, and it has not yet realised the necessity of taking very drastic and satisfactory measures to secure the fulfilment of this duty. It is a very small instalment of what in my judgment ought to be done, and I trust your Lordships will think it right and at any rate go as far as that.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, after ("the") insert ("competence, knowledge and").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I would remind you that at this stage the Minister who is in charge of the Bill can only speak once, and that, therefore, it might be more convenient if any of your Lordships who wish to support these Amend ments would speak first. If no noble Lord desires to add anything to what Lord Cecil has said, I must remind your Lordships that, although there is some difference between the proposal he has made now and that which was made in Committee, we did in Committee have a long discussion on the question of any kind of examination for drivers, a discussion which terminated in a Division in which the noble Viscount was beaten by 57 to 30. I think really the only new feature is that the holder of an unendorsed licence is to be exempt from this. We still take the view that this would he of no practical utility and therefore I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, may I take it from the noble Earl that if I do not make any remarks upon this Amendment, he will be able to deal with the Amendment which I have at a later stage on the Paper in much greater detail than he has dealt with this one?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL

The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 4, line 39, after ("authority") insert ("except in the case of an applicant who is disqualified as hereinafter mentioned") Page 4, Line 41, leave out from ("makes") to the end of subsection (2) and insert ("a declaration in the prescribed form that he is not, under the provisions of this Part of this Act, disqualified by reason of age or otherwise for obtaining the licence for which he is applying.")—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (5), after "constable," to insert "in uniform or on producing his authority." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment embodies a point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, on the Committee stage of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the driver is not required to produce his licence to a constable unless the constable is in uniform or shows his authority. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in Committee: I think this Amendment is reasonable because obviously the person ought to know who it is who is asking these questions, and interfering with him. He then said he would consult the Home Secretary and consider whether there was any objection, adding: "I think that in themselves they are reasonable." On those grounds I venture to move this Amendment again. I would also remind your Lordships that the drivers of motor vehicles on the roads to-day are very largely women, and that the psychological effect upon a woman of being stopped by some individual who may or may not be a police constable may be very great. In fact, the effect of an individual in plain clothes trying to stop her may have a very serious effect upon her. Cases have occurred where the police have desired to hold up the drivers of motor vehicles in order to see if their driving licences are in order. I was recently told of a case where two police officers in plain clothes in Epping Forest held up a woman driving a motor car at night and she was quite alone. She stopped, and they said they were police officers and asked to see her licence, merely in order to see if she had a driving licence. It was an extraordinarily unpleasant experience for the lady to have to go through. Therefore, I think something ought to be done in order to meet this particular point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, after ("constable") insert ("in uniform or on producing his authority").—(Earl Howe.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, as my noble friend has stated, I put an Amendment of this kind down on the Committee stage and the noble Earl was good enough to communicate with me and he has satisfied me completely by what he says in his letter. Would he like me to read what he says?

EARL RUSSELL

I do not remember it. I may perhaps have been injudicious in what I said in Committee, but I have carried out my promise, and I have been in close consultation with the Home Office, and was, indeed, considering this matter immediately before I came down to your Lordships' House. The Home Secretary takes the view that this Amendment is very undesirable because this form is one which has been in existence in many Acts of Parliament for a great many years. The words "police constable" without the words "in uniform or producing his authority" have been in the Motor Car Act since 1903, and have not been found in practice to produce any inconvenience. It is thought by the Home Secretary that the absence of this power might produce inconvenience to the police in certain cases.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In what cases?

EARL RUSSELL

In cases, if I might suggest one instance, where a detective in plain clothes has reason to suspect somebody. As the noble Marquess knows, motor cars are now used a good deal in crime. A detective might see a person sitting in a car and might desire to inspect his licence, and the man would be in a position to say: "I shall not show it because you are not in uniform" and to drive off before the plain-clothes officer produced his authority. In cases like that it may cause difficulties.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

He would have to have his authority in his pocket.

EARL RUSSELL

Yes, so he would in the case of an ordinary private motor car. I do not quite see the relevance of the case which the noble Earl [Earl Howe] quoted, of this unfortunate and frightened lady who was driving through Epping Forest alone late at night. She need not have stopped if she took for granted that the men were ordinary plain citizens and did not think they were police constables. But whether you did or did not alter this clause, it clearly would have made no difference to the effect upon her. She stopped in that instance. Neither constable was in uniform, nor did they produce any authority till after they had stopped her. I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. But the Home Secretary does take the view that this would create a difficulty for the police in certain cases. He takes a view which I think must be borne out by the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has had a great deal of experience of motoring. I doubt if he can produce any instance to the contrary. Nobody is ever summoned or convicted for not stopping on account of a signal given by a person in plain clothes when he does not know that person is a policeman or when the person does not produce an authority showing he is a policeman. So no practical difficulty is caused.

LORD DANESEORT

My Lords, may I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment? The noble Earl really has not told us of any inconvenience which would arise if the Amendment were accepted. On the other hand, one can see that unless there are words of this sort put into the Bill people—women and others—driving alone in lonely places might be held up by some totally unauthorised person and put to some considerable inconvenience. If the constable is in plain clothes, or is a detective in plain clothes, what is the difficulty in his stopping a car and saying: "I am not in uniform, but here is my authority"? The noble Earl has not given us any case in which that causes any inconvenience to the police and I hope my noble friend will press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, may I say one word, and that is that the noble Earl opposite has not in the least dealt with the example given by my noble friend Earl Howe. The subsection says:— Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, produce his licence, and if he fails so to do"— he commits an offence. The noble Earl suggested that a lady, when challenged, might have driven on and that if she had done so and the men turned out to be police constables she would have committed an offence. It is no good saying: "Oh, well, you can trust us, we would not prosecute." If she is prosecuted there is no defence. She has to plead guilty. She is given no opportunity of knowing whether they are police constables or not if they stop her. She might say: "Where is your authority?" and if they did not produce it she might drive on and be all right if this Amendment is carried. But if it is not carried and constables do not have to show any authority to prove that they are police constables, and if the lady happens to be wrong and drives on, she can be convicted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not want to put difficulties in the way of the noble Earl, but I think it is clear that if a person in plain clothes tries to stop a car an ignorant person—by that I mean ignorant of the law, and it might be a man or it might be a woman—might think it absolutely necessary to stop. He or she would say: "Unless I stop I shall get into trouble." But unless there is this provision it might turn out that they were rascals and not policemen at all. I think that really is a considerable reason for considering this matter. The public should not be put in this position that, unless they stop when anybody who chooses holds up his hand, they run the risk of committing an offence by not stopping because that person turns out to be a police constable. That seems to me a considerable hardship. I think that if somebody is to stop a motor car in the road he ought to have some visibile sign of authority. The visible sign with which we are all acquainted is the blue uniform of the policeman whom everybody has to obey, but if members of the public are to be told that they must stop for any one, no matter how seedy a man he may be, because he may turn out to be a police constable, that is a rather serious invasion of the rights of innocent persons. They may be perhaps a little timid or a little ignorant of the law, but they ought to be considered.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I think the facts in this case do cause very considerable difficulty. On the one hand one admits what has been said by the noble Lords beside me, but on the other hand it does seem that we have to meet new methods of crime inaugurated by people who snatch a motor car or who practise the comparatively new form of crime known as smash-and-grab. If news of a smash-and-grab raid is sent out to a number of police stations in a given area it may be necessary to send out a detective in plain clothes. It may not be convenient to send out a police constable in uniform to watch the place where the criminals are expected to come. It may be almost necessary on occasion to send out a man in plain clothes in order without delay to stop the man who certainly will be going at a very considerable speed. I only rise to suggest to the noble Earl whether he would be good enough to consider the question of providing that a detective should have some signal or something which he could produce in emergencies of that kind. We are accustomed, for instance, to see a constable going about with a truncheon. If the noble Earl will consider the question of providing a man in plain clothes with something that he could hold up which would be a sign to motorists, that might meet the case.

VISCOUNT SUMNER

My Lords, I cannot imagine that a smash-and-grab artist would ever contemplate employing anyone to drive a motor car for him, even on a smash-and-grab raid, unless he was equipped with a driving licence. It is a most elementary thing. Anyone can get a driving licence for a few shillings and I should have thought it was quite plain that to stop a car and call for the production of a driving licence was an idealist way of dealing with such an offence. On the other hand, a driver, male or female, young or old, who was held up by someone with a threatening and imperious appearance in plain clothes, would be put in a very disagreeable position. In the case of a man, if he was masterful a row might be provoked, or if he was timid he might fall into the hands of some smash-and-grab artist.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I do not quite see the point of the speech of the noble Earl. He, I understand, puts a case of a person stealing a motor car and notice being given to a police station where the only man available is in plain clothes. He suggests that if this Amendment is carried it will be difficult for the man in plain clothes to carry out his duties. I cannot see that at all. The man in plain clothes holds up his hand and the man in the motor car stops. The man in plain clothes says: "I am a police officer." Why not? As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, says, if the man in the car is of a pugnacious disposition he may, unless the man says he is a police officer, hit him on the head. Then he would be brought before the magistrates and charged with having assaulted a police officer. I certainly hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not know if your Lordships will allow me to say another word or two, but the fact is that these police constables who are not in uniform already have very much greater powers than this. Noble Lords know that in certain circumstances a police constable has powers of summary arrest which are denied to the ordinary citizen. He is able to exercise those powers whether in plain clothes or in uniform and that is a much more serious power than that which is given here. I will certainly consider everything that has been said this afternoon, and I can promise your Lordships that I will make it my business to see the Home Secretary himself and ascertain the reason for objecting to this Amendment. I know there is a strong feeling that this power is required and I hope your Lordships, at any rate at this stage, will not press the Amendment.

EARL HOWE

I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), after "constable," to insert "stop and". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give a constable a definite right to stop a car which apparently he has not got under this Bill if we do not insert these words.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, after ("constable") insert ("stop and").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), after "licence," to insert "for examination." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been found necessary in practice because it has sometimes been suggested that on production of a licence it is sufficient if it is flourished in the face of a police constable. Of course what is meant is that the constable should have proper opportunity of examining it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, after ("licence") insert ("for examination").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), after "person," to insert "or by his duly authorised representative." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was raised in Committee and the noble Earl said he thought the Amendment was going too far. But later, when pressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, he said that before the Report stage if words were put down to secure this point he would consider them. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to embody in an Act of Parliament what is the actual practice. Now, I think, if a person has not actually got his licence with him, so long as he has his licence produced to, say, his local police station within a matter of a few hours, and if the date is in order and so on, that is generally accepted by the court and the man is not convicted of an offence. If the driver has to produce the licence in person, I submit that this will not in any way enable the police to identify the person who produces it as being the driver, even supposing he produces it at a police station. There is no photograph of the driver on the licence and the police cannot identify him as being the person to whom the licence was issued. It would be a comparatively easy matter for a driver to arrange for somebody to impersonate him when taking the licence to the police station.

I think that, if the law is strictly administered as is proposed, this provision will result in a very great inconvenience. Take a driver who is going a long way, perhaps touring, as many people do in these days. He is stopped and has not his licence. It might in certain circumstances be very difficult for him to produce it at the police station, but it would be very easy if he were able to send a telegram to some accredited representative, a solicitor for instance, who would get the licence and present it at the local police station so that the police could see that it was in order. I suggest that the provision in the Bill would cause a good deal of unnecessary irritation. I should like also to tell your Lordships that all the representative motoring organisations are extremely anxious upon this point and, I am convinced, would appreciate it very much if the noble Earl could see his way to make this small concession.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 20, after ("person") insert ("or by his duly authorised representative").—(Earl Howe.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl, before he answers this point, that there seems to be very little reason why this Amendment should not be accepted? Take the ordinary case of a motorist who is summoned for some offence under the Motor Car Act. There is no obligation whatever upon him to appear in the police court in person. He can appear by solicitor or by counsel and, if he does so, you cannot bring him there personally. That point has been tried and decided by the Courts. The result has been that there has sometimes been a difficulty on the part of the police in proving any of his previous convictions. Nevertheless that is the law as it stands. If you cannot have the man's body there—which is the way the Divisional Court dealt with the matter—for the purpose of identifying him in order to prove his previous convictions, is it reasonable to say that you must have his body there for the purpose of producing a licence which gives no identification whatever of the person who produces it'? It would be a very small concession to allow it to be produced by an accredited person, such as a solicitor.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will accept this extremely reasonable Amendment. Just see how the Bill stands. A man has not a licence with him and he is stopped by the police. If he attends in person within five days he will not, under the Bill as it stands, be convicted of an offence, but if he does not go in person, at whatever inconvenience to himself, he is liable to be convicted of an offence. I could conceive of many reasons why a man should not go in person for that purpose. He might be two or three hundred miles away and it might put him to great cost and inconvenience to attend. He might be a man with large business obligations of different sorts. He might be engaged in trade, and it might be exceedingly inconvenient for him to leave his business at a particular time to go a long way to the police station for the purpose of producing a licence which his authorised representative could very well produce. If I may venture to say so, I cannot see that any difficulty would arise from allowing an authorised representative to produce this licence. No question of fraud or want of identification is involved, and you would relieve the man of a very serious obligation and, as I venture to suggest, a totally unnecessary one.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I am afraid that in this matter your Lordships have a little lost a sense of proportion. Your Lordships will remember that it is the duty of a motorist to carry his licence with him and to have it with him at all times, ready to produce, and he is already guilty of the offence of not having it and might, and in the ordinary course would be prosecuted. He is here given a method of escaping that prosecution. It may involve him in a little trouble, but he ought to be grateful for it, because he has already failed to do that which the law says he is to do —namely, carry his licence with him when driving. The noble Earl gave the example of somebody who went on a tour of many days without his licence. If a driver did that it would be a very improper thing to do. The licence might be required several times during the tour and it is against the law to start without the licence. He is given this locus penitentiæ. He is told that, if in five days he will produce the licence, I think at any police station he chooses, he will not be prosecuted. That is really designed to prevent hardships and I think your Lordships would be unreasonable if you were to say that he could send some one else.

There is another point that is, I think, worth mentioning to your Lordships. One of the later speakers—I think it was Lord Halsbury—said that there was no mark of identification on the licence. It has been suggested that there should be all sorts of things on the licence, including a photograph. I am not quite sure whether the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, ever went so far as that, but it has been suggested. It is now under contemplation to require the licence to be signed by the holder. Your Lordships are aware that a great many tickets issued for various purposes require the signature of the holder before they become effective, and that signature will to some extent provide a measure of identification, because the holder can be asked to sign at a police station and his signature can be compared with that on the licence. In that case there will be some means of identification. You have already granted this grace to a man who has broken the law, and I think motorists ought to be grateful for it. Much as I should like to satisfy the noble Earl and his friends, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved to omit paragraph (a) of subsection (6). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this paragraph is no longer appropriate, because all persons under sixteen are not now disqualified, as your Lordships will recollect from our discussion in Committee regarding motor cycles.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out line 26.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Provisions as to physical fitness of applicants for licences.

5.—(1) On an application for the grant of a licence the applicant shall make a declaration in the prescribed form as to whether or not he is suffering from any such disease or physical disability as may be specified in the form, or any other disease or physical disability which would be likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a vehicle of such a class or description as he would be authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public.

(4) If it appears to a licensing authority that there is reason to believe that any person who holds a licence granted by them is suffering from a disease or physical disability likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a vehicle of any such class or description as he is authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public, and on inquiry into the matter the authority are satisfied that the licence holder is suffering from such a disease or disability as aforesaid, then, whether or not the licence holder so suffering as aforesaid has previously passed a test under this section, the licensing authority may, after giving to the licence holder notice of their intention so to do, revoke the licence:

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

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):— or if at any time subsequent to the granting to him of a licence he contracts any disease or physical disability as aforesaid he shall as soon as possible make or cause to be made a communication of the fact to the licensing authority, and the licensing authority shall, after giving him notice of their intention so to do, revoke his licence, but so nevertheless that the person whose licence has been revoked under this subsection shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in this clause with respect to the passing of tests.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, certain infirmities are prescribed by the Minister as dangerous, and an applicant for a licence is refused it on those grounds; but supposing that, shortly after the licence has been obtained, the holder of it contracts one of these diseases, he is just as much a danger as he would have been if he had been suffering when he applied for a licence and had been refused. For that purpose I have put down the Amendment that appears upon the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I really think that this Amendment is unnecessary. The noble Viscount's suggestion is that, if the man contracts a disease, he is to notify the local authority and then they are to cancel his licence unless he passes a test. I think you have already given the local authority power to take action on receiving any information, and I think that is carrying it far enough. I do not quite see what the noble Viscount thinks he would gain by this Amendment, and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

But the local authority might not obtain information. He ought to be forced to give it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), immediately before the proviso, to insert "and the licence holder shall, on receipt of such notice, deliver the licence to the licensing authority for cancellation." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is merely to prevent a man holding a licence which has been cancelled and going on driving with it in his possession.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 5, after ("licence") insert ("and the licence holder shall, on receipt of such notice, deliver the licence to the licensing authority for cancellation").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "any office where the business of the authority with respect to the granting of licences is carried, on is situate," and to insert "the said person resides." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will remember that there was some discussion in Committee on this point. The object is to make it easier for the motorist. We have been in consultation with the County Councils Association on the subject, and they see no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 16, leave out from ("which" to ("and") in line 18, and insert ("the said person resides").—(Earl Russell.)

LORD RAGLAN

When I moved this Amendment in Committee, the noble Earl rejected it with some asperity. I would like to express my satisfaction that he has been able to change his opinion.

EARL RUSSELL

I apologise for any asperity and hope that my moving the Amendment now will satisfy the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provisions as to disqualifications and suspensions.

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

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

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

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I moved the same Amendment in Committee, and the noble Earl asked me to withdraw it for the time being, so that we could see what effect the Amendments of Lord Atkin would have on Clause 14. I have, had an opportunity of considering that, and it increases my objection to this subsection, because the court now, under Lord Atkin's Amendment, can for special reasons reduce the length of time for which the licence is to be suspended.

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

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Viscount has referred quite correctly to what took place in Committee. I did suggest to your Lordships that possibly this subsection would not be necessary if the compulsory twelve months' disqualification for drunkenness were removed. It was removed, but we still think that this subsection is necessary. You will notice, however, that the Government Amendments will make considerable alteration. In line 19 we propose to insert "six" instead of "three," and so the person disqualified would not be able to apply to the court for six months, and the proviso which we propose to insert at the end prevents him applying at every sitting of the petty sessions, and only once every three months. Perhaps it is not unnecessary to keep the subsection itself now, because it may well be that a bench of magistrates may wish to make a change in the sentence if it is brought home to them that there has been a change in the character of the person disqualified, and if you do not have this provision there will be no possible power in anybody to reduce the long period of disqualification. I think it is better on the whole that magistrates should have a dispensing power, if they wish to use it. In some cases they might be sorry if they found themselves absolutely tied by their original sentence of disqualification, if the circumstances and the conduct of the person disqualified altered in the meantime.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I should like to have an opportunity of considering these Amendments in print.

EARL RUSSELL

They are on the Paper.

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME

But they were only circulated this morning. I will withdraw my Amendment now and consider the Government Amendments when they are in the Bill, reserving the right to move again on the Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "six months" for "three months". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will explain this again, if there is any difficulty about it. Subsection (3) will now read that a person who is disqualified may after six months apply to the court to remove the disqualification, and the new proviso proposed to be inserted at the end provides that where an application under this subsection is refused, a further application thereunder can only be made after three months from the date of the refusal. That is to say, he can apply first six months after the disqualification, and after that every three months. That will be the effect of the two Government Amendments. Of course, the noble Viscount may find it easier to consider them when he finds the amended clause in print.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 19, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Earl Russell.)

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I have listened to the explanation of the noble Earl as to the effect of the Amendments, but he did not tell us why he desires to insert "six" months instead of "three".

EARL RUSSELL

Perhaps I did not. It was really rather to meet the view which Lord Bertie was expressing, that there ought to be no right to apply at all. We think, now that the disqualification is not automatic, but the result of a considered judgment, it is not unreasonable that it should stand for six months before it is removed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 29, at end insert: ("Provided that where an application under this subsection is refused a further application thereunder shall not be entertained if made within three months after the date of the refusal").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (4), after "six months or", to insert "if for special reasons the court shall think fit so to order". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with subsection (4), which provides that if any person who is disqualified drives a motor he shall be liable to a certain penalty. It is evident that if a person who is disqualified drives a motor he commits a very serious offence. It must be a deliberate attempt to evade the law in its most important provision, because I think a great many of your Lordships hold the view, which I hold, that the only really effective remedy for people who are really unfit to drive is to suspend their licences and that, therefore, if you have suspended a man's licence and he goes on driving, he is really cutting at the root of one of the most important provisions in the Bill. The Bill proposes that for this offence there should be a very heavy penalty, but gives the alternative of a fine. It really is not any use to fine people who do this kind of thing because the additional expense of £5 or £10 by way of fine to the ordinary cost of motoring is so small that it really amounts to no deterrent at all. My suggestion is that unless the court shall specially order that he shall be fined the person who is guilty of this offence should normally be sent to prison. That is really a desirable change to make. If there is a real case of hardship the court would always he able to order that a fine should be substituted for imprisonment. There is no doubt that there is a tendency—a very natural ten- dency if you consider all things—for the courts to treat these offences too lightly, and it would be a very important change if Parliament should direct that normally an offence of this character, which must be deliberate and is very serious, should be punished by imprisonment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 3, after ("or") insert ("if for special reasons the court shall think fit so to order").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, this seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment. There is a certain number of rich people, who may have been disqualified for holding a licence on account of dangerous driving, who do not care whether they pay £10 or £30, and who may say: "Well, we will run the risk. If we are caught we will pay £10 or £20. That is nothing."

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It is a very bad principle to say to a court of summary jurisdiction: "You are not fit to decide what penalty a criminal should suffer." We are here going to lay down in the Bill exactly what penalty should be imposed, and that is a bad principle.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I hardly think this Amendment does what my noble friend behind me says. It says that in ordinary cases the penalty is imprisonment, but in special cases the court may inflict a fine. You must remember this is an absolutely deliberate offence. The man is flying in the face of the law, and there ought to be a strong deterrent to this sort of thing. He may not care if he is fined £50; but if he is threatened with almost certain imprisonment he will think twice about it. When we were discussing this matter before I think it was Lord Atkin who said that a short term of imprisonment, which would probably be inflicted in these cases, would be no deterrent. I think it would. The sort of man who is very rich and does not mind a fine would not care to be sent for even a short term of imprisonment.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that for a man deliberately to drive when he is disqualified is about the most serious offence he can commit under the Bill, short of a gross case of dangerous driving, because he is deliberately flouting the law. He is setting himself against the court and the whole community, and saying: "I do not care what you say, I am going on driving." I am afraid it is perfectly true that people who have been disqualified from holding a licence do go on driving, and take the chance of being caught. At the same time, what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, says is perfectly true, that it is not very desirable to tell courts what they should do. And there may be special reasons where this should not apply. A man might have to go urgently for the doctor, and not care whether he was disqualified or not. Of course, that is, under the Amendment itself, a special reason to take into consideration, and the same thing would apply to a boy under sixteen who was caught riding a motor cycle. On the whole, we do not altogether approve of the form of this Amendment, but I am rather disposed to leave it to the sense of the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "either within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed," and to insert—

1. "(a) within a period of six months from the date of the commission of the alleged offence; or
2. (b) within a period which exceeds neither three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed nor one year from the date of the commission of the offence."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide the same limit as is generally provided for summary offences, but to extend that limit to one year at the outside where the information does not reach the prosecutor until some time after the offence has been committed.

Amendment moved— Page 10, leave out from ("brought") in line 10 to ("whichever") in line 15, and insert the said paragraphs.—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions as to endorsements.

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

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

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I have several Amendments here, the effect of which will be to make the proviso to subsection (5) read as follows: Provided that, in reckoning the said period of three years, any period during which the person was by virtue of the order disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence shall be excluded. We had a little discussion in Committee on this, and there did seem some conceivable confusion as to what the words might mean.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 29, leave out ("no account shall be taken of")

Page 11, line 30, after ("was") insert ("by virtue of the order")

Page 11, line 31, after ("licence") insert ("shall be excluded").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, my Amendment to subsection (6) is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 39, leave out ("shall") and insert ("in a case where a person is so disqualified shall also").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:—

Certificates of proficiency in driving.

".—(1) Any person holding a driver's licence under this Act and not disqualified from driving shall be entitled to have issued to him by an examining body as defined in this section a certificate of proficiency in driving on passing an examination as provided in this section to the satisfaction of the examining body and on payment to the examining body of such fees for examination as may be approved by the Minister.

(2) The Minister may authorise one or more representative organisations of the owners of motor vehicles (each of whom is in this section referred to as the examining body') to conduct examinations of drivers of motor vehicles with the object of enabling such drivers to qualify for the grant of a certificate or certificates of proficiency in driving.

(3) Any examination for the purpose of this section shall be conducted by the examining body under such conditions as the Minister may approve and shall include the driving of a motor vehicle on a road under varying conditions designed to test the abilities of the person under examination as a proficient and careful driver.

(4) The persons appointed as examiners for the purposes of this section shall be drivers of experience nominated by an examining body from amongst their own members and approved by the Minister, and any expenses incurred in conducting the examination shall be borne by the examining body conducting the examination.

(5) A certificate issued under this section may be issued in respect of a particular class or type of vehicle or in respect of several classes of vehicles.

(6) The holder of a certificate issued under this section may from time to time apply for examination for a certificate for a higher standard of proficiency and shall be entitled on passing an examination for that purpose under this section to a certificate accordingly.

(7) The examining body shall forthwith after issuing a certificate under this section notify the licensing authority of the issue of the certificate to the holder of a licence granted by them and the licensing authority shall on the payment by the examining body of a registration fee of one shilling record the certificate in their register of licences and shall indicate the issue of the certificate on any fresh licence thereafter granted to the holder of the licence so long as the certificate is not cancelled.

(8) A certificate issued under this section may be cancelled by the examining body if they are satisfied after considering all the circumstances of the case that the holder thereof is no longer entitled to hold such a certificate and upon cancellation the holder of the certificate shall surrender the same to the examining body who shall notify the licensing authority, but the examining body shall not cancel a certificate unless and until they have considered any grounds which may be urged against cancellation by or on behalf of the holder of the certificate.

(9) Where a person who is the holder of a certificate issued under this section is a party to any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in relation to a motor vehicle the court in considering the case shall have regard to the certificate held by that person."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this proposed clause is a revision of a suggestion made on an Amendment in Committee. The proposal has been revised in order to meet some of the criticisms then made, and the scheme for the system of certificates is more fully explained by the provisions of the clause. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, on the subject of the examination of drivers. I have listened with very great care to the arguments which have been brought by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to-day, and I am well aware of the arguments used. But I take the view that there is not a word in the whole of this Bill that will really improve the conditions on the roads. The problem we are faced with in this country to-day, as it seems to me, is a terrific death roll of 6,000 people on the roads in the year before last. What the figures are for last year I do not know. In the year before last 141,000 people were injured. That is, roughly, two-thirds more than were killed and injured in the corresponding period in France. I am perfectly certain that the people of this country will not be satisfied with airy assurances that examinations for drivers are no good. The average individual, I think, takes this view: Why should somebody be allowed to go on the road and drive one of these machines without first of all having to satisfy some authority that he really is a fit and proper person to drive a motor car and will conduct himself properly in it?

It is all very well to say, as some have done, that accidents are chiefly caused by skilled drivers. I do not believe that anybody has been able to get hold of any statistics to support that statement. And, as to examinations being no good, we have all passed through examinations. Unfortunately, I have had to submit myself to a few. I agree that some of them were useless. On the other hand, some of them were extraordinarily good. I submit that it depends on the nature of the examination and to a great extent on the examiner. I do not take the view that all examinations are useless. It depends on circumstances. The circumstances of the world have been alluded to by the noble Viscount this afternoon. We are alone in the world, with the exception of two other small countries—Belgium is one and I am not sure whether the other is Bolivia or some other small or less important country—in saying that examinations are no good; that we are to do nothing; in fact, that we are to sit down and fold our hands in face of this perfectly appalling death roll of not less than 6,000 people and say that we can really do nothing to remedy it.

The Bill contains severe penalties for reckless and dangerous driving. No doubt they will be operative up to a point. What appeals to me, however, as the result of my own experience and that of many more, is that what we have to do if we are to secure a reduction of the dreadful casualty roll on the roads —I do not say that all the casualties are due entirely to motor drivers; they are not—is to try to improve the standard of driving. We are passing through Parliament a Bill to deal with motor traffic amongst other kinds of traffic, and I submit to your Lordships that if Parliament allows this opportunity to pass without taking some effective action to try to do something to improve the standard of driving, it may be only a little, Parliament will lose a great opportunity indeed. If we could only secure an improvement of five per cent. it would mean lives saved on the road and fewer casualties, and people would take a little more care.

I am proposing in this clause a system which may seem somewhat elaborate and I will endeavour to explain it if your Lordships will bear with me. The first point about the system is that it is entirely voluntary. I do not propose, as the noble Viscount does, to compel people to go through an examination. It is not possible, perhaps, when you are faced with a problem of over two million people who hold driving licences, nor is it practicable, to say that they have all to go through an examination. It would not be possible for any organisation to deal with it. If it is done on voluntary lines it would take a little longer but I am confident that it would be really effective in the long run. The proposals generally mean that no driver who was disqualified from holding a driving licence would be entitled to obtain a certificate under the clause.

The purpose of the clause is to set up a system of examination and certificates which would encourage all drivers to try to improve themselves as drivers of motor vehicles and so raise the standard of driving with the object of making the roads safer and more convenient for all those who use them. The essence of the system is that the representative motor associations should undertake the whole of the business of examination and issue of certificates subject, of course, to the approval by the Minister of the arrangements. Some of the speakers in the debate in Committee seemed to suppose that the certificates would involve the licensing authority having to make provision for examinations, but this is not so. Under the scheme the licensing authority would have nothing to do with examinations. The Minister of Transport would take no part in that matter except to approve the arrangements made for the examinations.

I should like to tell your Lordships what each subsection really means. Subsection (1) deals with procedure. It directs the applicant to apply to one of the approved motor organisations and to make arrangements with them for his examination. There would be a fee for examination and for the issue of the certificate and it would be a matter for the examining body to determine whether this fee should be on a scale sufficient to meet the expenses. Such scale of fees as they might propose would have to be approved by the Minister and would, be under his control. Subsection (2) indicates the examining bodies who are to be entitled to conduct the examination and issue the certificates. The idea is that each class of driver would apply to the association particularly representing the class of vehicle he drives. Thus the R.A.C. and the A.A. would undertake the examination of private car drivers, the Commercial Motor Users' Association would undertake examinations for lorry and van drivers, the Omnibus Owners' Association would examine omnibus drivers, motor cyclists would be examined by the Motor Cycle Union, traction engine drivers by their own Association and so on with regard to other classes.

It would be open to any representative motor association to apply to the Minister for authority to conduct the examination, and the Minister would satisfy himself that each body was fit and proper to be entrusted with the making of arrangements for examinations. It may be suggested that the associations do not possess the necessary staff for carrying out the business of examination. In my opinion the great motor associations would not have the slightest difficulty in forming suitable panels all over the country of people who would, first of all, have to be approved as examiners by the Minister and would, therefore, still be within his control. They would do the work voluntarily and I do not believe that the cost to the great motor organisations would be very great. After all, those motor organisations have been able to set up great services all over the country in connection with touring and so on.

Subsection (3) is intended to indicate the nature of the examination and the object of the test. Here again the conditions of the examination are to be approved by the Minister and it is laid down in this subsection that the examination shall include a practical driving test on the road under varying conditions and shall not only be written or oral. Subsection (4) provides that the examiners are to be drivers of experience. I do not think the great organisations will have any difficulty in providing suitable people and of course the matter would be kept under the control of the Minister. Subsection (5) makes it clear that there would be different grades of certificates dealing with the different classes of vehicles. You require an altogether different standard for the omnibus driver or public service vehicle and lorry driver from that which you require for the driver of the private car.

Subsection (6) provides different standards of proficiency for drivers and subsection (7) provides the really compelling part of the whole voluntary system if I may use a somewhat extraordinary expression. Subsection (7) provides for linking up the certificate with the driver's licence. It proposes that the examining body on granting a certificate shall communicate with the licensing authority and that the grant of the certificate shall be notified on the register and on the licence. Subsection (8) provides for the cancellation and surrender of the certificate where a driver has been disqualified or convicted of an offence which showed want of judgment and care. Subsection (9) simply is intended to make it clear that the certificate will be taken note of in any legal proceedings.

I think it is most important that the court should have before them the result of an examination passed by the driver, and it certainly would not interfere with their decision, and might, in certain circumstances, help. Suppose you had an expert who had passed his examinations with flying colours and he was alleged to have committed some grave offence on the road. I think his offence would be all the greater if he had passed his examination successfully, because he could not plead lack of knowledge or incompetence or anything of that sort. The court would rightly say: "It is very serious in your case because you have proved to be a skilful driver on examination." I beg your Lordships not to dismiss the proposal to have an examination for drivers lightheartedly, or simply decide it upon the lines followed in Committee stage. I know we have had a vote upon it, but really the vote that was taken in Corn-mate was not on quite the same proposal as that which I now venture to submit. I feel that if we can secure an examination of drivers we shall have done something definite to try to improve the standard of driving, and thereby make the roads a little safer for all than they are to-day.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 7, after Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I am a convinced believer in tests for driving, and I am not the least taken in by the statements made by the Government that it is impracticable to introduce such a system here. In America, which has a population three times that of this country and which is notoriously a lawless place, every person has to get a certificate in order to drive, whereas here anybody, of either sex and however unsuitable, automatically obtains a licence. Neither am I the least impressed by the statement that accidents are caused by the extra skilful drivers taking risks. In my opinion it is the exact opposite, and I can cite my own case. Years ago I used to drive a motor car, but I very soon, and not without prudence, abandoned this occupation, because I realised that I was not only seriously endangering my own life but also the lives of the rest of the community, and I had sufficient prudence to stop in time. That to my mind is a convincing reason why these licences should not be distributed indiscriminately. On the other hand, if licences are desirable, I have not the least faith in the plan proposed by my noble friend—this system by which a person becomes an expert and has issued to him a certificate by some body of motorists. It stands to reason if an incompetent person starts to drive—take my own case for instance—the would not go near these associations at all, for he would know he would not obtain a certificate, and even if he did, what good would it be 7 If we are to have a test, let it be a compulsory and universal one. Although I sympathise with the object of my noble friend, for the reason that it is to be a purely voluntary test I find myself quite unable to support him.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, may I mention one matter? In France, if you want to drive a motor car, you have to take out a certificate as a certified driver, and if you are taking a car out from England you can get out of the difficulty by going down to one of the associations, the A.A. or the R.A.C. or one of the associations, and you will be put through a test and given a certificate which is accepted by the French authorities as showing that you are a competent driver. I would point out what the test is, because I have been through it. You drive once round Leicester Square and come back and then are told you are a competent driver. How are you to have any sort of certificate or test to tell you whether or not you will be a competent driver? Then there is this other consideration. You may be a very competent driver one day, and you may have a bad crack on the head or an accident or something of that kind and the next day you may be quite incompetent to drive a motor car. How are you to deal with every conceivable case from the beginning to the end of the year? And, unless you do so, of what use is it? With the greatest respect for the noble Lord who moved this Amendment I regret I cannot support him.

VISCOUNT CECIL or CHELWOOD

My Lords, I would not have risen except that I feel the observations of my noble friend to be really disastrous to all progress in all directions. What does it amount to? He says in effect that unless you have a perfect remedy it is not worth while to apply any remedy at all. That I am sure would be to defeat all the best legislation that has been passed in this country. The attempt to reach perfection by one jump is quite impossible, and I am surprised that a noble Lord sitting on those Benches should give vent to so idealistic and impractical a suggestion. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to a Division, but if he does I shall support him, not because I think his plan is as good as mine but because I think it is better than nothing, which is exactly the converse reason to that of my noble friend who has just spoken. I think it would do something to secure a better atmosphere in the minds of those who undertake to drive, and I believe that it could not possibly do any harm. What beats me about the objection to these tests for drivers is this. I cannot conceive how they are to make anybody worse off except the man who has to go through the test. I cannot conceive how it is to make anybody worse off to say: "Well, at any rate, some test should be applied to those who seek to drive this very dangerous instrument on the road." I do not think it is going to cure the whole thing, but that it will do something, and I hope that the Government, if they cannot accept this particular plan, will yet, even at the eleventh hour, consent to reconsider this matter. I am quite satisfied that the introduction of such a test would be of some advantage, and I cannot persuade myself that it is going to do any harm of any sort or kind.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Earl with great industry has produced quite a little Bill, and it does not seem kind to reject so much hard work, but I really do not see what he thinks he is going to attain by this. Almost everything he wants to do can be done entirely voluntarily. These motor bodies can join together and can conduct either joint or separate examinations and give certificates in any form they like covering any sort of driving. All that can be done without any statutory authority. I looked through the provisions, and I see for example that the Minister is to approve the fees. The fees can perfectly well be settled by the body that decides to start the examination. The Minister may also authorise them to conduct examinations. Well, the bodies that would be capable of conducting examinations are quite well known, even without the Minister's authority, and do not require the Minister for that. Again, I see that persons who are to be examiners are to be approved by the Minister, but there are plenty of other people in the motoring world quite as fit to approve them as the Minister, and the Minister could not do very much more than accept their advice and suggestions even if he had to give his formal approval.

The only thing, it seems to me, that cannot be done by voluntary effort is referred to in the last subsection, which says:— Where a person who is the holder of a certificate issued under this section is a party to any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in relation to a motor vehicle the court in considering the case shall have regard to the certificate held by that person. I am not sure that that adds anything to the existing law, because I do not think that the court would accept this certificate as anything but evidence of the holder's character perhaps. Really it is not even that. It is only evidence of proficiency, and proficiency and good character are two totally different things. None of these tests apparently would be long road tests for good manners and good behaviour on the road. I do not see any suggestion of that sort anywhere, and I do not think that No. 9 would give the court more power than it has now.

The last observation that the noble Earl made rather surprised me, because he seemed to suggest that the production of one of these certificates in court would lead to the holder getting a much severer penalty than otherwise. If so that would hardly make the certificates popular and I do not think many people would go in for the voluntary examination. I admire the noble Earl's industry and I wish I could meet it to any extent, but I am afraid I cannot. I do not think we can accept the insertion of this new clause in the Bill, particularly as everything the noble Earl desires can really he done by voluntary effort.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 9:

Restriction on driving by young persons.

9.—(1) A person under sixteen years of age shall not drive a motor vehicle on a road unless on first applying for a licence after the commencement of this Act he satisfies the licensing authority that he was during the six months immediately preceding the passing of this Act regularly driving a motor vehicle.

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

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

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

(5) A person to whom this section applies shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be disqualified under the provisions of this Part of this Act for holding or obtaining any licence other than a licence to drive such motor vehicles, if any, as he is not by this section forbidden to drive.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "passing of this Act" and to insert "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty," and, in subsection (3), to leave out "passing of this Act" and to insert "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments follow on a discussion we had in Committee as to the driving of motor cycles. There was a suggestion made that existing licences should remain of some effect and I propose therefore instead of leaving the words "passing of this Act," which are rather vague, to insert "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty."

Amendments moved— Page 12, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("passing of this Act") and insert ("first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty") Page 12, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("passing of this Act") and insert ("first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), at the end to insert:— Provided that in the case of a person driving a heavy motor car not being a public service vehicle eighteen years of age shall he substituted for twenty-one years of age.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Earl has put down this and a large number of other Amendments which he moved in Committee and which were then discussed and negatived. I do not think your Lordships will wish to have a second discussion. I am afraid we cannot accept it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

The next Amendment is by Earl Howe on Clause 10.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has inadvertently passed over an Amendment to subsection (5) of Clause 9 standing in the name of Earl Howe. That is an Amendment which we can accept and I shall be very glad if the noble Earl will move it.

EARL HOWE

In that case I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 29, leave out ("to whom this section applies") and insert ("prohibited by this section by reason of his age from driving a motor vehicle").—(Earl Howe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10:

Rate of speed.

10.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle of any class or description on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in the First Schedule to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description, and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A conviction for a first or second offence under this section shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, including a provisional licence.

(4) The Minister may by regulation vary, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulation, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act in relation to any motor vehicles used for fire brigade purposes.

(5) If any person is convicted under Section five of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring any person who is employed by him to drive, or is subject to his orders in driving, a motor vehicle on a road to commit an offence under this section, he shall, instead of being liable on being so convicted to the same punishment as the principal offender, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and if any person is convicted summarily of the offence of inciting to commit an offence under this section, he shall, notwithstanding anything in proviso (c) to subsection (1) of Section twenty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, be liable to the same punishment as if he had procured the commission of an offence under this section.

(6) If a person who employs other persons to drive motor vehicles on roads publishes or issues any time table or schedule or gives any directions, under which any journey or any stage or part of any journey is to be completed within some specified time and it is not practicable for that journey or that stage or part of the journey to be completed in the specified time without an infringement of the provisions of this section, the publication or issue of the said time table or schedule or the giving of the directions shall be prima facie evidence that the employer, as the case may be, procured or incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles to commit an offence under subsection (1) of this section.

EARL HOWE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in order that we may ascertain from the Government what progress has been made in connection with the revision of the speed limits proposed by the First Schedule. The matter was referred to, as your Lordships will remember, on Second Reading and again at the Committee stage, when the noble Earl said that it was hoped to be able to coalesce the speeds into four. I think your Lordships by common consent allowed the matter to stand over until the Report stage, but the Government have not put down any Amendments and we do not know whether they have any suggestion to make upon this particular Schedule. I therefore beg to move the Amendment. I hope the Government will be able to reduce the number of speeds, because I think it really quite absurd to have five as now provided in the Schedule. I think if the Government could see their way to reduce the number to four, or perhaps to three, it would be very much better, and I should think it would be very much more simple from the point of view of administration.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 35, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Howe).

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I can reply to the question of the noble Earl at once. It has been found extremely difficult to deal with the matter of these speed limits. We have been trying to reduce them. To reduce them to three I am afraid will certainly prove impossible, but that we can reduce them I am satisfied. There were, however, certain technical and practical difficulties to be considered when we came to look at the Schedule and departed from the simplicity of founding ourselves upon what the Royal Commission decided. We have prepared a new Schedule which will be on the Paper to-morrow. If your Lordships think you have not time to consider it I will postpone it until Third Reading, or it might be put in the Bill and examined before Third Reading. But we have at last arrived at a Schedule.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "drive", to insert "any motor vehicle on a road at a greater speed than forty miles per hour or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to raise the question of the speed limit for light motor cars. If I have not made it clear I must ask the indulgence of your Lordships for not having done so when I was talking about the examination of drivers. I want one of two things—either the examination of drivers or, as your Lordships have rejected that, a speed limit of forty miles an hour for light motor cars. I am of opinion that to remove the speed limit altogether would result in a certain number of very indifferent drivers who have passed no sort of test in getting a licence putting up a higher average speed than that at which they generally drive now. They would feel that restraints had gone. It is true that there are provisions directed against reckless driving, but these people might perfectly well drive faster than they do now and still escape a charge of reckless driving. To allow people to go faster than they do to-day, people who very often are unskilled drivers, would result in more casualties and I do not want to see anything done to increase casualties. We have done nothing to reduce them, and I am afraid that by removing the speed limit it is possible that they may be increased.

I am quite alone in making this proposal, because the motoring organisations with whom I am co-operating in regard to the rest of the Bill do not wish in any way to be associated with me in making it, very largely, I think, on account of the bargain which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, when the Bill was going through Committee. He let a very interesting cat out of the bag on that occasion. He told us that the motoring organisations had arrived at some extraordinary agreement with the Ministry of Transport and had, in fact, made some bargain with that Ministry, and that they were to get their part of the bargain through the removal of the speed limit. I should like to say one other word. We had a debate in Committee on this point and I challenged a Division, but I am afraid that, owing to inattention and inadvertence, I failed to repeat the challenge. I had an assurance, however, from a number of your Lordships that they would support me if I went into the Lobby, and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 36, after ("drive") insert ("any motor vehicle on a road at a greater speed than forty miles per hour or").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM My Lords, I have an Amendment to the Schedule to fix the speed of private motor cars at thirty-five miles an hour, and I should like to move an Amendment to the Amendment of my noble friend to leave out "forty" and to insert "thirty-five." My own belief is that it is absolutely necessary, if we are to do anything to prevent the fearful sacrifice of life that is going on, to have a speed limit. Personally I should have preferred a limit of thirty miles an hour, but I suggested thirty-five because I thought it more likely to be accepted by your Lordships' House. There is a very interesting letter upon this point in The Times of to-day. It is from a Mr. Percy Northey—I do not know who he is—who says that he has made certain tests with a "Phantom II" Rolls-Royce, which I believe is one of the best cars that are on the road at the present time. He made these tests on a road which he described as having a surface like that of the Brooklands track, and I understand from his letter that when he made the tests it was quite dry and there was no danger of any side-slips or difficulty in pulling up. What does he say? He says that at twenty miles an hour the car pulled up in 17 feet 4 inches; at thirty miles an hour it pulled up in 33 feet 6 inches; and at forty miles an hour in 72 feet 6 inches.

Consider, a machine weighing—I think I am not exaggerating—two tons and going at forty miles an hour with everything in its favour, a dry road, no rain or anything of that sort, and being unable to pull up in less than 72 feet! I suppose that is about as far away as the clock at the end of this Chamber or even a little further. Consider what could happen in that time, and also what would happen if the road were not quite in the condition in which it was when this gentleman made these tests. Suppose there is another car approaching him, also at forty miles an hour, and, owing to some slight greasiness on the road, one car makes a slight movement sideways and the two collide. What is going to happen when two machines weighing something like two tons and each going at forty miles an hour come into collision?

I have often found, when I have been driving on the road in a motor car, that people come and pass within three or four inches. They have been on the centre of the road and my car has moved to the near side and they have not got out of the way. We pass at the speed of an ordinary railway train with only four or five inches to spare. If you remove the speed limit you will encourage that sort of thing. After all, what hardship is there in being compelled to go at not more than 35 miles an hour? I cannot see that there is any hardship at all. It is said that it is difficult to enforce the speed limit. There are many laws that are difficult to enforce, but because you cannot enforce a law it does not mean that we should make it legal to do something that is dangerous to the lives and comfort of the majority of people in this country. I shall have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Howe, but I should like to leave out "forty" and insert "thirty-five."

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I find myself quite unable to support the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. Surely nobody in this country can possibly say that the result of the speed limit up to date has been anything but deplorable. The noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill has had the courage to say that he is going to try a new system. He is going to do away with the speed limit and to make it a much more serious matter to drive to the danger of the public. Let us give that idea a chance and see if we get something better. We could hardly get anything worse. When I heard the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken I felt reconciled to the fact that I have never been able to afford a Rolls-Royce, because anything more deplorable than the braking system, if it is at all in accordance with the letter which the noble Lord read, I cannot imagine. The noble Lord said that 72 ft. was about as far as that clock. It is a cricket pitch, or rather more; and here is a car travelling at 40 miles an hour that cannot pull up on a, good road inside the length of a cricket pitch ! I am sorry either for the person who designed the brakes or for the driver. Either the car or the driver ought to be off the road. But how that is any sort of argument—

LOND BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am not responsible for either the driver or the letter.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I should be very sorry to be responsible for the car. Surely the Bill provides a reasonable suggestion. Having absolutely failed with the present system, having found that the speed limit is hopeless, that nobody obeys it in any circumstances, that it gives a definite idea that a driver can drive up to the legal limit in any circumstances, which clearly he cannot, surely we should give the new system a chance. I cannot possibly support the Amendment that the noble Earl has moved.

VISCOUT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken poured scorn on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam. I also read the letter in The Times. I cannot pretend to have checked the figures, but Lord Banbury omitted one interesting fact—namely, that this letter was a correction of a previous letter which had given much longer distances. The writer says that the previous figures are inaccurate, that he has himself tested them with the "Phantom" Rolls-Royce. The noble Earl who has just spoken says that he is quite certain that he could pull up a car of the weight of the "Phantom" Rolls-Royce in less than 72 feet, and I understood him to pledge his reputation to that statement.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Only if there is an adequate braking system on it.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Of course I am assuming such a braking system as the manufacturers of Rolls-Royce cars, which I understand are very good cars, would supply.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I know nothing about that.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Exactly; but I should like to know whether the noble Earl has ever made the test himself, because these impressions, particularly the impressions of motorists, are very often found to be inaccurate.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I like it.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

As he challenged me, I would say that I have been, as a matter of fact, during the last four or five weeks testing the pulling up of a car on certain tracks, and according to the experience I have gained the figures given in this letter are simply ridiculous.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That does not tell us what the car was. It might have been a very light car. These figures are stated on the authority of a gentleman, who gives his name, as the result of tests which he has applied.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Does the noble Viscount suggest that the Bentley car is not a good car?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Of course not. I made no suggestion at all. I am not interested in any of these cars, and made no suggestion at all as to whether they are good or bad. But I suggested that it might weigh less than a "Phantom" Rolls-Royce. I do not know that the exact number of feet which it takes to pull up a car is very material. It has some bearing, but not a complete bearing. The thing which impresses me, I confess, is not so much that it is certain that the maintenance of a speed limit will do very much to make the roads less dangerous than otherwise they would be, but it is the very strong feel- ing which exists in the country in favour of the maintenance of a speed limit. The London County Council, as I understand, have passed a resolution in favour of it. The London police are in favour of it. It is quite true that you can quote authorities on the other side, but there is certainly a very large body of opinion in favour. The other day the Ministry of Transport summoned a meeting to consider this among other questions. I do not remember how the meeting was constituted but no doubt they were people well qualified to speak, and they by a very large majority decided in favour of the maintenance of a speed limit.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The present one?

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

No, I think they were in favour of 35 miles an hour, but they were against the abolition of the speed limit altogether. I think that ought to be taken into consideration. In a matter of this kind, which affects the lives and happiness of a great many people, it does seem a very strong order to make a change of this kind unless you are quite certain it is going to do good. If it is only not going to do harm, then I venture to hope your Lordships will not make a change, because I think it will create very widespread apprehension in the minds of a great many people. I admit that I judge partly from the correspondence which reaches me. It is said that we had better try this change because the other plan has failed. I think that is a dangerous spirit in which to embark upon legislation. I think you ought not to pass legislation of this kind merely because the existing system is a bad one. You ought first to be satisfied that the new system you are going to introduce will be a better one. I have not heard from the noble Earl who has defended the proposal any argument to show that this would really make things safer, and I think it is not wise or right to cause so much apprehension and anxiety to a large number of people. Supposing that in a year's time, as I am afraid is only too likely to happen under this Bill, the accidents so far from diminishing show an increase, then I think those who are affected by those accidents will feel bitterly against the Parliament which has taken from them what they at present believe to be an imperfect but still a slight protection to life and limb.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I venture to think that this is a matter in which your Lordships ought to do all in your power to lessen the terrible toll of deaths and accidents which now prevail, and if there is reason to believe that continuing the speed limit at a proper figure, say of thirty-five miles an hour, will diminish that disastrous toll, your Lordships ought to accept that proposal. This appears to me to be very largely a matter for the evidence of experts, and when I speak of experts I mean those who have special experience and knowledge, both of accidents and of the cause of accidents. So far as my investigations have gone, it appears to me that the weight of evidence and expert opinion is decidedly in favour of retaining the speed limit. I do not say twenty miles an hour, but I suggest thirty to thirty-five miles an hour. In Committee I ventured to remind your Lordships of what was stated in the Report, where it was pointed out that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the majority of city and borough chief constables were in favour of retaining the limit, as well as the Metropolitan Magistrates and the Magistrates' Association, and a substantial number, although I admit not a majority, of the county chief constables.

Since the matter was considered in Committee we have had two striking pieces of evidence. First, there has been the report of the special Traffic Committee of the London County Council. What they said, after most careful investigation, was this, that so far as London is concerned they supported the views of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and of the Metropolitan Magistrates, and suggested a limit of thirty-five miles an hour. They point out that there has been a serious increase in recent times of accidents to pedestrians, and they anticipate that if the speed limit is abolished the danger will be intensified. Then they quote from the report of the Highway Committee of the London County Council, who view with alarm the possible result of abolishing the speed limit or of fixing high speed limits in certain urban areas. May I add to this a statement made by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Sir Chartres Biron, who has perhaps the widest experience of any Metropolitan Magistrate in this matter. He was hearing a case where a serious accident had occurred, and he commented strongly on the speed. He said that this accident was caused, as nearly all accidents were caused, by driving at excessive speed.

I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the case for retaining the speed limit in the Metropolis is really unanswerable, having regard to that body of opinion, and if it is to be retained in the Metropolis can we properly say that it should not be retained in the provinces The truth is that the Government have given away the whole case for the abolition of the speed limit, because they have set up in their Schedule a scale of speed limits for every single motor vehicle on the road with the one exception of passenger vehicles; and how can you say that it is proper to set up a speed limit for all these other vehicles but improper to set it up for the one class only, of passenger vehicles? Therefore, I venture to say that by their own Bill the Government have shown the necessity of a speed limit for passenger vehicles.

Then we are asked: "Supposing the speed limit is abolished how are the public to be protected?" We were, told by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the last occasion that the public would be amply protected by prosecutions for driving to the danger of the public. I think that would be a most illusory form of protection, because we have the authority of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that it is extremely difficult to get a conviction for driving to the danger of the public unless an accident has actually occurred; in other words, that if a man is prosecuted for driving to the danger of the public he will be acquitted unless he has either killed or injured someone. That is a striking illustration of the valuelessness of these prosecutions. Many chief constables also have found a similar difficulty. And the reason is quite obvious. Driving to the danger of the public is a matter of opinion. Some magistrates, through prejudice or otherwise, do not like these prosecutions, and they say: "Where was the danger? No one was hurt." There- fore I say that the system of prosecution for driving to the danger of the public is totally inadequate to protect the public.

May I refer to two fallacies which were put forward during the debate in Committee. One, I regret to say, was put forward by Lord Russell, who is not given to such aberrations. He said that if the speed limit is inserted motorists will think that wherever they are they can drive safely up to that limit. Surely, that is attributing inconceivable folly, not to say criminality, to motorists. If that argument were of any value at all it would apply to the drivers of those other vehicles for which the Government have fixed a speed limit. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, poured some contempt on the existing speed limit and said it was not observed. Quite true, and that is why we propose to alter it. But the fact that twenty miles an hour is unsuitable does not prove that thirty-five miles an hour is not a reasonable limit. Then there was this other fallacy, that speed in itself is not dangerous—if the car is under proper control. That is precisely the point; but if the car is travelling at a high rate of speed, more especially if the road is in a greasy state, it is impossible to have the car under proper control and to pull up in a reasonable distance.

It is the experience of every pedestrian in London that one of the great difficulties of avoiding death or accident is the high speed at which motors come on you. They come upon you before you have time to think or get out of the way, and if you see them coming it is exceedingly difficult to estimate how soon they will be on top of you. That difficulty is due to high speed. We have all been accustomed in old days to crossing roads in London and elsewhere when the traffic was horse drawn. The loss of life and limb owing to horse traffic in those days was practically negligible. It was possible for the pedestrian to get out of the way. And why? Because the speed was moderate. This tremendous increase in death and accidents is due to the fact that the speed is so great. I therefore most earnestly hope that your Lordships will put in a speed limit, and not neglect this opportunity of dealing, to some extent at any rate, with the present terrible loss of life.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, said that driving to the danger of the public is a matter of opinion. But so is exceeding the speed limit a matter of opinion. It is only a matter of fact if a regular police trap is set. Regular police traps are not and cannot be set in places where accidents are likely to occur.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, was really a very remarkable performance. If this matter were new and we had not discussed it at considerable length already it would afford me great pleasure to spend nearly half an hour upon that speech. One of the most marvellous things he said by way of argument for a speed limit was towards the end of his speech, where he called attention to the wicked speed at which cars are driven, and the horrible way in which they come upon you without notice. That is under a speed limit of twenty miles an hour.

LORD DANE SFORT

It is constantly exceeded.

EARL RUSSELL

Precisely. Does the noble Earl suggest that because he has to complain of that under the present speed limit, it will be impossible under a new speed limit of thirty-five or forty miles an hour? It is a very curious argument. The only other point in the noble Lord's speech with which I want to deal is one about which there is some misapprehension, which I should like to correct. Over and over again in his speech he referred to the opinion of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates. My information is that there has never been any meeting of the whole of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates, or any poll taken of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates; and that if, in fact, a poll were taken, it would be found that a majority of them were in favour of the abolition of the speed limit. And therefore the Metropolitan Police Magistrates must not be quoted as if they had come to a conclusion on this subject. The noble Lord also referred to Sir Chartres Biron and his experience. Sir Chartres Biron is a very experienced magistrate, but it is the first I have heard of his being an experienced motorist, and of his being familiar with the conditions of motoring. We ought not to have these bodies and these individuals quoted unless the statements can be substantiated, and in the case of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates my information is that that statement certainly cannot be substantiated.

The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Lord Cecil) said towards the end of his speech that he had not heard (I forget whether he said from me or from anybody) a single argument in favour of the abolition of the speed limit.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I did not say that.

EARL RUSSELL

I think if the noble Viscount will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that he did say that.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I am sorry, because I should never have thought of saying such an impertinent thing of my noble friend. What I did say was that I had not heard any argument—perhaps that was putting it too strongly: any argument that convinced me, I should have said, that the abolition of the speed limit would make things safer. That was the point I was going to make.

EARL RUSSELL

Had the noble Viscount said that he had not heard any argument that would have convinced him it would have caused me no surprise. It is not very easy to convince the noble Viscount. I have already ventured to put forward arguments and I do not want to trouble your Lordships with them again too much. But I think this question ought really seriously to be put to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment again. I ought perhaps to say that I am not going to complain of his moving it again as it was dealt with rather summarily in Committee and I dare say he would have called attention to it had his attention not been distracted. But we did not actually discuss this speed limit of forty miles an hour, and I think I ought to put this to him. He is now proposing a speed limit of forty miles an hour. Is he going to tell your Lordships that he will observe that speed limit if it is imposed? If he is not going to observe and does not him-self intend to observe that limit, what is the meaning of putting it into an Act of Parliament? It simply means that there is again a speed limit which is not observed even by its own proposer. That is really an indefensible position.

Does the noble Earl intend simply because he is a very skilful driver that this speed limit, or some smaller speed limit, should be observed by the ordinary, more or less competent driver, while he because of his skill is to be free to go at a higher speed? If that is what he intends it is the whole argument for abolishing the speed limit. We are simply saying what we have said all along, that the speed limit does not make for safety for the reasons I have given your Lordships over and over again. It directs attention to the wrong thing; and every speech in the debate to-night that has been made in favour of it shows that the speed limit of twenty miles an hour has not made for safety. The great complaints that are made are that the driving is now abominable and dangerous under the speed limit of twenty miles an hour. Yet your Lordships are asked to say that it will be safer, and less dangerous, to have a speed limit of forty miles an hour. That does seem to me the height of unreason.

It was said that many accidents were caused by excessive speed. That is perfectly true, and that is what I said before in attacking the speed limit. I have said that there is no such thing as a speed limit for all times and places; that there are different limits of speed which are safe in some conditions and not safe in others and are safe at some times and not at others. Many accidents are caused because people drive too fast, it is said. That is perfectly true; but that would not be cured or touched by a speed limit. It is not touched by the present speed limit. It would not be touched by any other speed limit. A noble Lord, Lord Banbury I think it was, spoke about people driving at forty miles an hour on a "skiddy" road. The man who drives at forty miles an hour on a "skiddy" road is driving like a fool. He is asking for trouble and is extremely likely to get it. It am sure that the noble Earl who moved this Amendment would be the first person to agree that such a person is extremely likely to get trouble. The distance in which you can pull up is enormously increased by a greasy and dangerous road, and anybody who is driving with due regard to public safety ought to drive carefully on a road in that condition. It is the most dangerous condition one has to face in motor driving.

I do not want to say anything about a supporter, but with regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said I cannot say that I should be inclined to challenge Mr. Northey's figures very much as to the distance in which you can pull up. I think there is a considerable tendency on the part of motorists—and I think it is one of the things about which they have to learn—to think that they can pull up in shorter distances than they sometimes can pull up in. Your Lordships must remember that when you are going at forty miles an hour you are travelling twenty yards a second. You have gone very nearly twenty yards, at any rate you have gone ten, before you have really got your brake applied and before your mind and nerve have responded and before the mechanism of the brake has responded. In my own driving, it may be a counsel of perfection, but it seems to me a necessary counsel, I do not regard forty miles an hour as safe unless I have at least a certain 200 yards clear in front of me on the road. I think we ought to teach motorists not to be under the impression that because their brakes are good they can pull up in an imaginary distance. They cannot. Neither is it true that they are actually likely to collide at forty miles an hour because, of course, the speed will be greatly reduced. These mistakes about pulling up are not confined to motorists. It sometimes happens to railway trains. With all their experience and management and expert knowledge the engine drivers think that they can pull up when entering a terminal station and do not succeed but run into the buffers.

Those are some of the things that we want motorists to learn. We want them to learn these arts of driving so as not to endanger the public. We do not want them to try to drive with their eyes fixed on the speedometer but with eyes fixed on the space in front of them to see that it is perfectly clear, and to realise that as that clear space is diminished so must their speed be diminished and that the rate of speed at which they can go can only be determined by the amount of clear space in front of them.

There was in Committee a very decided expression of opinion on this question and I do not want to trouble your Lordships by discussing it again. I hope you will not accept this Amendment. I honestly think that unless the noble Earl is prepared to tell your Lordships that

EARL RUSSELL

The next Amendment in my name is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("including a provisional licence").—(Earl Russell.)

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (4), after "fire brigade," to insert "ambulance or police." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I pointed out in Committee that the ambulance did not come outside the weight limit, but we have since been approached by the London County Council and we understand their ambulances do exceed the limit and therefore it is necessary to exempt them here.

he will observe this speed limit if it its put into the Bill it is rather an impertinence to propose it.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS.
Abingdon, E.	Novar, V.	Danesfort, L.
Howe, E. [Teller.]		Redesdale, L.
	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	St. Levan, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Bertie of Thame, L.	Forres, L.
	Chaplin, V.	Gainford, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
		Hayter, L.
Salisbury, M.	Knutsford, V.	Heneage, L.
	Mersey, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Airlie, E.		Kylsant, L.
Bradford, E.	Abinger, L.	Lawrence, L.
Clarendon, E.	Addington, L.	Leigh, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Alvingham, L.	Lovat, L.
Denbigh, E.	Armstrong, L.	Luke, L.
Fortescue, E.	Arnold, L.	Marks, L. [Teller.]
Halsbury, E.	Askwith, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
Lauderdale, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Meston, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Charnwood, L.	Monkswell, L.
Luean, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Midleton, E.		Raglan, L.
Morton, E.	Clinton, L.	Riddell, L.
Plymouth, E.	Clwyd, L.	Russell of Liverpool, L.
Russell, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Scarbrough, E.	Cushendun, L.	Shandon, L.
Stanhope, E.	Dynevor, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Stradbroke, E.	Doverdale, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Swaythling, L.
Allendale, V.	Faringdon, L.	Thomson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 16, after ("fire brigade") insert ("ambulance or police").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 24, after ("liable") insert ("in the case of a first conviction").(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (6), after "practicable," to insert "in the circumstances of the case." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is intended to make it clear that the time allowed for any journey is to be such that at no part of the journey will the speed limit have to be exceeded in the circumstances likely to be present on that road, having regard, for example, to the number of delivery calls that would have to be made. The time taken when there was little traffic might not be adequate when there was a good deal of traffic.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 40, after ("practicable") insert ("in the circumstances of the case"). —(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL RUSSELL

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 3, leave out ("subsection (1) of").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:

Reckless or dangerous driving.

11.—(1) If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be liable—

1. (a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, either to such imprisonment as aforesaid or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine;
2. (b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(2) The court shall order particulars of any such conviction to be endorsed on any licence held by the person convicted.

(3) On a second or subsequent conviction under this section the convicting court shall exercise the power conferred by this Part of this Act of ordering that the offender shall be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence unless for special reasons the court thinks fit to order otherwise, but this provision shall not be construed as affecting the right of the court to exercise the power aforesaid on a first conviction.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or which might reasonably be expected to be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these words which appear in Clause 11 are the vaguest almost you could have. I know they are a quotation from the existing Motor Car Act, but this is one of the things that have created a great deal of difficulty in the minds of a number of people. Under certain conditions, as I am sure the noble Earl knows well enough, it is absolutely impossible for the driver of a motor vehicle to know what might reasonably be expected to be on the road. I think if these words could be left out they would not in any way weaken the clause. I personally would have liked very much to have seen the clause relating to dangerous driving completely defined. I moved an Amendment to that effect on the Committee stage, but as it was defeated I do not bring it up again. The words we do not like are "which might reasonably be expected to be." They are too vague.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 9, leave out ("or which might reasonably he expected to be").(Earl Howe.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will deal with this point and I will say exactly why I hope he will do so. Having had considerable experience in motor cases, both in criminal work and on the civil side, I know there is a very great divergence of opinion as to what is meant by this. I can quite understand that if a driver comes up to a blind corner and does not know whether anybody is coming out of it, clearly he ought not to be heard to say: "Something was not coming out, and I was lucky at that particular moment." That is a piece of dangerous driving. But unfortunately some magistrates have taken the view that, although you can see there is in fact nothing on the road, nevertheless it is dangerous driving if you go over a certain speed, because if there had been something there which you know is not there then it is dangerous driving. For that reason I should like the matter cleared up. It is not very satisfactory at the present moment. Of course I think that any ordinary person would understand what is meant, that you cannot go past a blind corner and pray in aid that nothing was coming out. If you have an opportunity of seeing whether there is anything on the road or not, and know there is nothing, I should have thought this would have covered it, but unfortunately certain benches do not think it covers it. Therefore one would be grateful if it was made a little clearer.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, may I say again what I said in Committee, that I certainly hope these words will not be omitted because that would make it even more difficult than at present in the case of some benches to obtain a conviction for dangerous driving where nobody was injured. If, as the noble Earl who moved the Amendment suggests, there are occasions when it is quite impossible to determine what traffic may be reasonably expected on the road, I should say that is an occasion when you should proceed with the utmost caution. With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl who has just spoken, what may be reasonably expected to be on a road must be a question of fact. I do not think it is possible to give magistrates any directions as to that. I suppose that if they came to the conclusion that traffic might reasonably be expected to be on the road when in fact everything was clear and could be seen, such a decision could be set aside on the ground that there was no evidence to support it.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I think the noble Earl himself almost admitted that if he were sitting on a bench of magistrates he would not have much difficulty as a lawyer in saying what this means. But, he said, absurd views were sometimes taken. I can give him an instance from my own experience when I was defending a motorist twenty-five years ago at Colchester on a charge of driving dangerously. It was said that among the things which might reasonably have been on the road was a tramcar. The interesting point was that this motorist was facing a dead end where the tramlines stopped and there was no tram in front of him. Yet it was argued that a tramcar might reasonably have been expected to be there. I had to point out that it would have been necessary for it to bob up from underground to get there. That case was tried by a learned Recorder who took the right view of the law and said that that was ridiculous. I imagine the words would be in effect there whether they were there in print or not. I understand that lawyers take the view that these words are really implied in any case in the section and I am afraid that we cannot alter them now.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "three" and insert "four." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is one to which I attach considerable importance and if your Lordships will bear with me for a minute or two I will do my best to outline the position and give the reasons for moving the Amendment. The proposal is to increase the penalty on summary conviction for reckless driving from three months to four months. The object of that is to entitle a defendant, if he so wishes, to have the case tried by a jury. Under the present law relating to reckless driving of a motor vehicle, a person who is convicted summarily for reckless driving may be subject to a fine not exceeding £20 or in the case of second or subsequent convictions to a fine not exceeding £50. Under the Bill these penalties are going to be very considerably increased, and quite rightly so, in the case of dangerous driving. There is a good deal of apprehension amongst the drivers of motor vehicles with regard to the proposed new law lest they should find themselves brought before benches of magistrates who are prejudiced against motor drivers. There are still a number of benches of magistrates who are very prejudiced against motor driving, and any motorist haled before them is obviously in some considerable danger, particularly if the has not been in fact guilty. He may be in danger of great injustice.

It is proposed to increase the term of imprisonment from three months to four months, thus bringing into operation Section 17, subsection (1), of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which gives the right of trial by jury. Under Clause 14 the punishment for persons driving motor vehicles when under the influence of drink or drugs may be four months imprisonment or a fine of £50. That term of imprisonment follows the existing law provided by Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. The term of four months imprisonment was provided in that section, I understand, for precisely the same reason as the increase from three months to four months now proposed in this Amendment. Similarly the clause which became Section 40, when included in the Bill as introduced in Parliament, provided for three months imprisonment, but during the progress of the Bill in the House of Commons an Amendment was moved in Standing Committee increasing the term from three months to four months. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that reckless driving was originally dealt with in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1925 as deserving of a high penalty and the clause in that Bill, as amended by Standing Committee B of the House of Commons, provided for the penalty of four months imprisonment in the case of reckless driving in addition to driving while drunk. When the Bill came before the House of Commons on Report stage an Amendment was moved to omit reckless driving, on the ground that the law in relation to the driving of motor cars was to be reviewed and that in fact there was a Bill on the stocks.

I could give other instances in which the penalties for a first offence on summary conviction are heavier. For driving when disqualified, or for applying for a licence when disqualified, the penalty in each case is six months imprisonment or a fine of £50 or both. Therefore in such cases I suppose a defendant is entitled to be tried by a jury. For driving when drunk, or for being drunk in charge, the penalty is four months imprisonment or a £50 fine or both. I submit that reckless driving, which is a very serious charge, should be dealt with on the same lines. I believe that by this Amendment we should remove all possibility of injustice under the Bill and enable Parliament to do what it really wants to do, that is, to stiffen up penalties against dangerous driving.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Earl Howe.)

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment. Surely, when you are dealing with the liberty of the subject as you are doing here, a man ought to have the right of trial by jury. There is also another point to consider. We are not only saying that justice should be done, but also that people should feel that they are having justice. At the present time, there is undoubtedly a great feeling among motorists that certain benches of magistrates are not treating them fairly. I do not say that they are right in that view, but I do say unhesitatingly that a lot of people have got it into their minds that there are certain benches that do not deal fairly with motorists. Why not give such people a chance of going to a jury, if they want to do so? Under Section 17 of the Act of 1879 they can do so, but it is not a right that everybody is going to exercise. The magistrates have to explain to the prisoner that, if he likes, he can go to a jury, but if he prefers it he can be dealt with by the magistrate. He can make up his mind.

It is not by any means to be assumed that everybody wants to go to a jury or will choose to do so, but if a person really feels that he wants to go to a jury and that he is not going to get justice from the magistrates—I am not saying that he would not get it, but that might be his feeling—why should he not go to a jury? If the penalty is increased to imprisonment for four months instead of three months for driving recklessly or to the danger of the public, he will be able to do so. I am certain that the noble Earl will not object to that increase, because the whole idea of this Bill has been to do away with the speed limit and treat reckless driving and driving to the public danger much more seriously. Nobody can say that a maximum of four months imprisonment is too much for these offences and, if you extend it to four months, the man will have a chance of going before a jury if he really wants to do so. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, because, like the noble Earl who moved it, I feel that it is a very important one.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Is it not a fact that, if a man is convicted by the magistrate, he can appeal?

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Of course he can appeal to Quarter Sessions, and those magistrates may, in that particular part of the country, be just as prejudiced, in his view, as the bench. I do not say that they will be prejudiced, but that he may think so. It is a great thing that a person should feel that justice is being done, as well as that justice should, in fact, be done.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I think it would be convenient if I were to speak before the noble Lord. Let me make clear the point which he raised regarding Quarter Sessions. You can appeal to Quarter Sessions, but your Lordships must appreciate what that means. In a borough it means that you go before a learned Recorder, who is a trained lawyer, but in a county it means simply that you go before, perhaps, five magistrates—not necessarily the same magistrates; in fact, I think, almost necessarily not the same—but similar magistrates of the county, and they go through your case again. There is a further point that ought to be borne in mind about the appeal to Quarter Sessions, and that is that it is not a poor man's business, because, before you can appeal to Quarter Sessions, you are invariably required to find a surety for the costs of the appeal, and the poor man cannot generally find that security; so that wealthy people are able to appeal to Quarter Sessions while poorer people cannot.

The result of the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has moved is that if the penalty is four months, prisoners in the police court will have to be informed at the beginning of their right to be tried by a jury, and they can elect to be so tried if they are afraid of the magistrates. It is not for me to say that there are prejudiced benches. It is said that there are. There may he or there may not be. At any rate people may think that there are, and that in itself, as the noble and learned Earl said, is almost as important. The prisoner has to be informed of his right to be tried by jury and he can choose to be tried by jury; and there, of course, he gets what is the palladium of our liberties—that is to say, twelve of his fellow-countrymen who pass upon his offence. On the other hand, your Lordships ought to remember that these summary jurisdiction powers of inflicting imprisonment or of convicting are given in an enormous number of cases which are quite as serious—many of them more serious to character and reputation—than cases arising under this Bill. In such cases the only appeal is the appeal to Quarter Sessions, and the penalties do not entitle the prisoner to appeal to a jury.

I think I should not be wrong in saying that the general view of magistrates all over the country, and probably of the police all over the country also, would be that summary jurisdiction would be almost impossible if in all these cases you had an appeal to a jury. This is only one of the cases arising in that class, and I am rather disposed to ask your Lordships to express some further opinion upon the matter before I come to a final conclusion. I cannot help feeling that an appeal to a jury gives a better chance to a man who is accused; but, on the other hand, your Lordships must remember that the whole plan of the Summary Jurisdiction Act is founded upon leaving what are regarded as minor offences to magistrates. In the cases before us, of course, conviction may be followed by the very heavy penalty of disqualification, quite apart from the penalties of imprisonment or fine. This is really a matter, I think, on which I should like to hear more of your Lordships express a view as to whether you think that these cases ought properly to be triable by a jury. I hope that your Lordships will assist me in coming to a conclusion on that matter.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I understand that this was in the Criminal Justice Bill, 1925, and was taken out of that Bill because this Bill was on the stocks. That was the sole reason for taking it out.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not think that this Bill was on the stocks so long ago as that.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I can only express my view from some experience in the past on benches of magistrates. My recollection is that, when it was explained to the prisoner that he had that right of having his case tried by jury, in nearly every case he preferred the more simple method of summary jurisdiction in the magistrates' court. At the same time I cannot help feeling, in view of the very heavy penalties to which a person can be subjected in connection with dangerous driving and of the fact that he can be penalised for a long time by having his licence taken away, that in the interests of the liberty of the subject he should be given the right to appeal to a jury if he so desires.

LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM

My Lords, the noble Earl opposite interrupted me when I was about to speak, so I gave way to him. May I give my experience of the result of a case going to a jury? A case came before me, sitting on a county bench in Wiltshire. Two soldiers who were going from Chisledon to Swindon at night were knocked over by a motor car. One was carried on the bonnet of the car a distance of some twenty yards and a portion of his brain was knocked out. This was about ten o'clock at night. The motorist continued his journey. The other soldier stopped a passing motor car which took the injured man to the camp hospital, and he then communicated with the police in Swindon. They went to various hotels and they found in the yard of one of them an open motor car. The near side wing was broken, the glass was broken and the near side standard which supported the glass was broken off. At the place where the soldier was knocked over there were remains of glass. They then found out to whom this motor car belonged and the man was brought before the bench of which I was at that time chairman. The method by which the police charged them was such that all that we had to do was to decide whether there was a prima facie case to go to a jury. The car was shown to us and we saw all these marks. The man who drove the car was a salesman in a motor firm. It was proved that he left Marlborough, about six miles from the scene of the accident, with his car uninjured. His explanation was that owing to the bumpy state of the road this damage to his car was done—the wing was bent, the glass was broken and the side iron was bent down. We gave considerable attention to the case, and unanimously committed him for trial, and the jury let him off.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl has appealed to us to give him what counsel we can. I am bound to say that it appears to me to be a very difficult issue to decide, but, speaking only for myself in this particular instance, I should be inclined to give the right of trial by jury, and I say that for this reason. After all, it is most important that what we do in Parliament should command the complete confidence of the public, and this question having been raised as to whether or not, upon a matter of considerable importance to the individual charged, he should have the right to trial by jury or not, I think it would appear to be rather a denial of what is ordinarily looked upon as almost a right by Englishmen, if this House declined to give that right. Therefore, the matter having been raised, I should venture to counsel the noble Earl to accept the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I will be perfectly frank and say that my own feeling is almost exactly the same as that of the noble Marquess. On balance, I think there would be a certain unfairness in not giving this right, and I am very glad that the noble Marquess has expressed that view. In the circumstances, I should be glad to accept the Amendment now, and if anyone who represents the point of view of the Stipendiary Magistrates, or any other magistrates who have to deal with it, thinks that this will lead to real administrative inconvenience, the matter can be raised again on the next stage of the Bill. For the moment, I am glad to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "but a person shall not be convicted under the provisions of this subsection merely on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I want here to make an appeal to the Minister. This Amendment was moved in Committee not quite in the same form. The Amendment moved in Committee used the words "merely on the opinion of one witness." A discussion took place, in which Lord Swaythling and others took part, and it was pointed out that "opinion" was an unsatisfactory expression. The Amendment has, therefore, been put down again with the words, "uncorroborated evidence of one witness."

The noble Earl was not very sympathetic towards this Amendment when it was moved in Committee, but I really would like to submit to him that the motorist is in an extraordinarily difficult position. It is true to say that there are many other cases of equal severity where a man can be convicted and punished on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, but the motorist is in a peculiarly difficult position. He may know nothing, perhaps, of the offence with which he is charged until three weeks after it is alleged to have been committed. He is suddenly told that in the opinion of some individual he has gone through some town at a speed which that individual considered to be unsafe, and he would have the greatest difficulty in procuring witnesses, even if he were lucky enough to secure any at all. He might, indeed, as the Bill stands, come into court without having the slightest idea of what offence is alleged to have been committed. Therefore I think we ought to ensure that justice is done. I think there is some question of whether there is any analogy. I am not a legal man, and I do not know whether any analogy is to be found in the law for the proposal which I am making. I think it is possible there may be, and if so, I hope I shall get support on this ground. I hope also that the noble Earl will be able to give a little more sympathetic consideration to this Amendment than lie did on the Committee stage.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 20, at end insert ("but a person shall not be convicted under the provisions of this subsection merely on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness"). —(Earl Howe.)

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, there are, I believe, precedents for this Amendment. In the first place, in the Bastardy Act I think a person cannot be convicted of being the father of an illegitimate child on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, and I think the same thing applies in the case of perjury. I there-fore hope the noble Earl will see his way to agree to the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, there are one or two exceptions to the general law, but that only shows what the general law is. The noble Earl has said that he is not a lawyer, and perhaps he does not appreciate how very reluctant a lawyer is to alter the general law for particular cases, unless there is an overwhelming reason for doing so. In the two cases cited by the noble Lord there are overwhelming reasons for making an exception, but I cannot feel that they exist here, and I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved in subsection (3), to leave out "for special reasons" and after the second "court" to insert "having regard to the lapse of time since the date of the previous or last previous conviction or for any other special reason." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this introduces special mention of a matter which was raised in Committee, and which we have taken into consideration—namely, a period of good conduct. The clause when amended will then read: unless the court, having regard to the lapse of time since the date of the previous or last previous conviction or for any other special reason thinks fit to order otherwise.

Amendments moved— Page 14, line 28, leave out ("for special reasons") Page 14, line 28, after ("court") insert ("having regard to the lapse of time since the date of the previous or last previous conviction or for any other special reason"). —(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 12, to insert:—

Dazzling driving lights.

".When a motor vehicle is being driven during the hours of darkness along a road lighted with street lamps it shall be an offence under this Part of this Act for the driver to maintain the illumination of the head-lights of the vehicle at full intensity unless the beams of light are deflected downwards so as to avoid dazzling other persons on the road."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether, if I withdrew this Amendment and put it down on Report, he would be prepared to deal with it, and I understood him to agree to its being put down on Report. The noble Earl objected to the provision about a road lighted with street lamps and said the position about dazzling lights was very difficult, but that the Minister could make regulations. It is, however, far better to embody the law of the land in an Act of Parliament than in regulations. In other countries it has been found perfectly possible to embody exactly similar clauses in their legislation, clauses which have worked perfectly well, and with absolutely no hardships. My proposal is that you may not have your headlights burning at full intensity in an urban area unless you have the beams deflected. That does not mean that you are forced to use a, proprietary article.

The Royal Commission said that drivers, in order to avoid dazzle, should either have dipping headlights or swivelling headlights. I do not believe that the Royal Commission quite understood the recommendation which they made, It would have the effect of insisting upon the provision of a proprietary article. This Amendment makes no such recommendation as that; it merely says that the beam of light must be deflected. You can adopt any means you like to achieve that. Nowadays lamps are constructed in many different ways. In some cases the whole lamp dips, in others the reflector in the lamp only dips; there are others that have a secondary bulb which, taking the reflection from the bulb in a different part of the lamp, has the same effect of deflecting the beam, and it gives you a perfectly satisfactory driving light for all ordinary purposes. This Amendment also gives power to have a dimming device, if you would prefer that. Everybody admits the danger of dazzling lights. They are not only a danger but a thorough nuisance to pedestrians and everybody else when used in towns, and should never be used unless absolutely necessary. There are days like yesterday when owing to fog it is absolutely essential to have your headlights on in a town, but even so it is much better and more efficient to have than deflected.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 3, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, a letter has been sent to the noble Earl on this sullect—I do not know whether he has not received it—pointing out that the Minister has already ample power to mace these regulations, and that they need not be put in the Statute. The noble Earl said it is desirable that they should be in the Statute. I do not think that on reflection he will really think that, because we should avoid the very flexibility which you want to have—the possibility of making changes as new thugs are brought out. The Minister can already by order provide either for this or for what is suggested in the noble Earl's next clause—or will be able to when this Bill is passed; and it would le very unfortunate to put a specific proposal of this sort in the Statute. I pointed out in Committee the arguments against this particular proposal and that "a road lighted with street lamps" is really such a vague description that it may mean almost anything, perhaps a Welsh village with a couple of oil lamps in it. It is not a reasonable or possible definition, and as it can be done properly by regulation I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, the noble Earl says it can be done by regulation and yet he opposed it on the last stage of the Bill. Therefore I take it that the Minister is not prepared to issue regulations to that effect, and it would be much better to have it in the Bill.

EARL RUSSELL

In these particular terms certainly not, because it does not mean anything.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Does the noble Earl undertake that the Minister will deal with the point?

EARL RUSSELL

Oh yes, the Minister is preparing to deal with all these points.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL HOWE moved to insert after Clause 12:—

As to vehicles standing with dazzling lights.

".When during the hours of darkness a motor vehicle is stopped or drawn up on the off side of the road so that the white lights are reflected towards vehicles approaching on the same side of the road the owner or person in charge shall not maintain the power of the lights at such an intensity as will dazzle the drivers of such approaching vehicles, and shall if necessary to avoid so doing either dim the lights or deflect their intense beams downwards towards the surface of the road, and the driver or such person failing to do so shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I was interested to hear from the noble Earl that the Minister can make regulations to embody these points. If I can get an assurance from the noble Earl that he will really in fact deal with these particular points I shall be quite content to leave it at that, though I must confess I do not like legislation by reference. It is not a really satisfactory way of conducting our national affairs. I was interested some time ago to read in a newspaper the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hewart, on the subject, and I am sure many of your Lord- ships must have studied them with great interest. I observe that the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has on the Paper an Amendment to my Amendment. I should be quite prepared to accept that Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 3, after Clause 12 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not know whether the noble Lord who has put down an Amendment to the Amendment would be prepared to accept the Minister's assurance; otherwise he has the right to move his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I understand that Earl Howe would be content to have his Amendment dealt with as if Lord Swaythling's Amendment had been inserted. In that case that will save time.

EARL RUSSELL

I am afraid that even in that form I cannot accept it. I think that what the noble Earl wants is to prevent a car with its lights on at night stopping facing the wrong way so that it deceives other cars coming along. Is that the point?

EARL HOWE

I want to prevent any car remaining stationary at night with headlights on, and particularly on the wrong side of the road.

EARL RUSSELL

Well, there are two separate questions. The question of the car being on the wrong side of the road can be dealt with by regulations later on in the Bill under the heading of dangerous positions. The question of keeping the headlights on when the car is standing can be dealt with under regulations as to lights. I cannot promise, of course, that the regulations will be made in this particular form; but the noble Earl has already received, I think, in correspondence from the Ministry, the assurance that this matter has been continually receiving the most earnest consideration and that if the Minister can properly make regulations he will do so. I cannot say more than that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree with the noble Earl that no useful purpose can be served by a motorist keeping his dazzling headlights on when his car is at rest.

EARL RUSSELL

No.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is a great inconvenience to every one, and I do not think it can do any good at all. The only point in having these lights, which are certainly excessive now, is to show the road which the man is going to travel over himself. If his car is at rest he does not want them at all. Therefore, I should have thought the noble Earl could promise to issue a regulation to stop that.

EARL RUSSELL

I think I can safely promise that any regulation issued will certainly put a stop to that. I do not think I should be pledging the Minister to anything he would not be prepared to do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 12, to insert:—

Motor vehicles to carry sound warning instruments.

".Every motor vehicle when used on a road shall carry a bell or other instrument or mechanical device capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach and position of the motor vehicle and the driver of the motor vehicle shall whenever necessary give such audible and sufficient warning by sounding the bell or other instrument or mechanical device."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved in Committee, but I should like to submit to the noble Earl that the Locomotives and Highways Act, Section 3, contains a similar provision, as also does The Motor Car Act of 1903. While I listened with great attention to the arguments used by the noble Earl on the last occasion, I could not understand why these regulations should be repealed, as they are, by Clause 102 (1) and the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. If the noble Earl could give us a little explanation of that and why he desires to deal with this matter by regulation rather than by embodying it in an Act of Parliament, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 3, at end insert the sad new clause.—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, if you will look at the Amendment proposed I think it will carry you a long way towards the answer to the question. It says— Every motor vehicle when used on a road shall carry a bell. … Do not the words "carry a bell" take your Lordships' minds back a great many years in the use of motor cars? I do not know of any motor car that carries a bell now.

EARL HOWE

May I inform your Lordships that all my cars have bells? Motor ambulances also have bells on them.

EARL RUSSELL

Yes— or other instrument or mechanical device capable of giving audible and sufficient warning. That shows, I think, that times change and that these things are better done by regulation than by Statute. It is perfectly true that it is not in the Statute. It can be done by regulation and the regulation may prescribe all sorts of things. It may, and I hope very shortly, prescribe that horns of some particular character shall not 133 used at night time and possibly not even in the day. It may prescribe that horns of particular ferocity and horror shall not be used at all, except, at all events, in the open country. I think it is far better to leave the whole thing to be dealt with by regulation, as it can be. The provision as to bells was put in at the time because the whole thing was new and the public said, "Let us have a bell or gong to tell us that it is coming". Now, I think, they are prepared to leave the proper device to be prescribed by the Minister.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 13:

Prohibition of motor racing and speed trials on roads.

13.—(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in an organised rice or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a road shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "road," to insert "except such a race or trial as the Minister may sanction and the road authority may approve." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a new Amendment and I think it explains itself. I understand, of course, that a number of people do not desire to see racing by motor cars in any shape or form. But it is a fact that races take place and have taken place in certain parts of the British Isles very much to the benefit of the dis- tricts concerned and the people who live there. The local authorities have benefited very much by such races, and the people in those parts of the country have not been unduly inconvenienced by them. I refer, of course, to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. If the local authorities concerned made application to the Minister to hold a race upon a road on Salisbury Plain I submit to your Lordships that there could be no public objection to it in that area. As long as the matter was kept under the control of the Minister there would never be any danger of a road race being held on such a place as the Portsmouth Road or the Brighton Road or anything like that where it would be a nuisance and a danger to everybody. The Minister would be subject to Parliamentary control in this as in everything else he did.

Let me give your Lordships another instance of the sort of race which might be held. A few years ago the corporation of one of the biggest watering places on the South Coast decided to have road races, or rather speed trials on the front. A little while before the event the chief constable communicated with the Home Office and the Home Office promptly informed him that this was entirely contrary to the law, that in no circumstances could approval be given to anything of the sort, and furthermore, that he would be expected to take action to stop it. In the result the trials did not take place. Had they taken place they would have been an additional attraction and amenity to the town, and they would not have interfered with the general use of the front. The front happens to be rather specially constructed in this particular place and the trials could have been held without being a nuisance to anybody. Under the law as it stands that sort of thing is impossible, but there are a number of people who say that other countries gain very much while we lose be cause we are unable to hold road races in secluded parts of the country. Therefore, I venture to submit this proposal to your Lordships for consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 6, after ("road") insert ("except such a race or trial as the Minister may sanction and the road authority may approve").—(Earl Howe.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I earnestly hope, my Lords, that the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment. I think there is nothing more unsuited to motor races than the public roads of this country.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, when my father was Governor of the Isle of Man he put legislation through the Manx Parliament which enabled motor races to be held on the public roads of that Island. These races conferred the greatest benefits upon the Isle of Man, one of the benefits being the presence of the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill. As far as I know, those races caused no serious inconvenience to anyone.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Would the provisions as to dangerous driving apply to these road races?

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I was going to say that I do not want you to think that this proposal of the noble Earl's is as ludicrous as, on the face of it, it rather appears. It is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said, that a great many years ago the Isle of Man, by special legislation, thought proper to allow these races to take place. The Gordon-Bennett Race was held in Ix eland, and I think that Ulster has recently allowed these races under legislation. It is worth your Lordships' while to remember that these races, or speed trials, or whatever they are, have been extraordinarily popular in the places where they have been held and everybody has very much enjoyed them. But they are rather alien to our ideas in this country and I cannot off-hand think of a place that would be suitable for them. I must certainly say that the Minister does not at all desire to have placed upon him such a terrible duty as to be called upon to give his consent to anything of this kind. If this question is to be raised at all I think it had better be raised in another place and the feeling had better be taken there. It seems to me that your Lordships would be very unwise to accept a proposal of this kind because I do not think that public opinion in this country would care for it at all.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 13, to insert as a new clause:—

Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads.

".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."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question of commons and foreshores was raised in Committee and I promised to consider what could be done to meet the case. This clause is intended to meet it. I am not quite sure that it is entirely satisfactory, but your Lordships will see that it provides that if, without lawful authority, a person drives a vehicle on to any land which is not part of a road, he shall be guilty of an offence, provided that it is not an offence to drive on land within fifteen yards of a road for the purpose only of parking—I am not sure that fifteen yards is not a great deal too much—and that he shall not be convicted if he prove that the car was driven for the purpose of saving life or of extinguishing fire or meeting any emergency of that sort. He probably would not be summoned in that case. Whether this will specifically meet the case of a foreshore or not I do not know, but I think it will. Your Lordships will notice that it leaves to the owner the possibility of authorising it where he wishes to authorise it by including the words "without lawful authority." I am not sure whether this will actually meet what is desired. What is desired, I understand, is to prevent cars travelling here and there all over the downs and other similar places where there are no roads, and where those persons have no business to be, and also rushing up and down the seashore at seaside places. Those are desirable objects, and we think this will attain what is aimed at, but if any of your Lordships see a way of improv- ing the clause before the next stage we shall be glad to consider any suggestions that may be made.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13 insert the said new clause. —(Earl Russell.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I should like a little more explanation of what the clause really means. It seems to me it will prevent motor cars being driven anywhere but on a public road except with the permission of the owner of the land, but does it give a permission which does not exist at present to people to park their cars alongside the road and within fifteen yards of the road? Does it give a fresh permission to people to do that? I do not myself think that it does, but I am not quite sure. I am particularly concerned in the question of commons, for my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland and I have arranged, under the Law of Property Act, to make regulations with regard to two commons in Surrey, and under those regulations you are unable to draw up or drive any vehicle on the commons or to camp or light fires there without being subject, to a penalty not exceeding 40s.

Would this provision enable people to park their cars on such commons, or does it only apply to commons and other places where such provisions do not exist, and therefore extends the law of trespass? Does it make an offence punishable under Clause 95 of this Bill in addition to any possibility of punishment which might at present exist under the law of trespass? I think we ought to have that made quite clear, to show that this is an addition to the existing law and not a subtraction from it. I think that is a correct interpretation, but it may possibly need as the noble Earl said, some explanatory words on Third Reading in order to make that quite clear. It does say this in the proviso, that it shall not be an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road. That does seem rather wide. I do not think it does mean "any land," yet I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that this does not derogate from any existing provisions aril only adds to the offence which may be committed by driving off the road.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl how this clause would affect, for instance, a place like the New Forest? Anybody who goes anywhere near the New Forest knows that an enormous number of people in motor cars go there in summer quite innocently and have picnics. No doubt it is the same at Burnham Beeches, though I have not been there myself. Would not this clause have the effect of making it impossible for those people to go there? I do not believe there is any local agitation against it; at least I have never heard of any. They are people who go there to enjoy themselves and get fresh air. After all, many of them are wage earners who have to work hard during the week, and it would be hard lines upon them if you were to prevent them using their motor cars or their motor cycles to go to places where they could get fresh air and enjoyment on a Sunday.

LORD RAGLAN

I should like to ask the noble Earl, is it quite clear who the local authority is who can authorise people to drive on commons and foreshores?

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me about the New Forest. I do not see that this is going to prevent people going to the New Forest. It would prevent them driving all up and down over a place which was not the road and I think that is rather desirable. It would enable them to park near the road, and I do not know that you want motors scorching all up and down the New Forest where there are not roads. It would be undesirable to allow that. The noble Earl says they go there for rest and recreation. Why should they not use their legs for the purpose of getting to parts of the New Forests where there are no roads? Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell me privately what harm there would be in this. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked if it was intended to create new rights over other people's property. It is not intended to do that, and I hope it does not do it, but we will consider whether any proviso might be inserted. I do not think it does it, but it is only fair that the public should not be misled, and it might be worth while to put in a proviso to say it does not create any new rights. What it purports to say is that you shall not commit an offence under this clause by doing what I have indicated. But it might be wise, in order that the public should not be misled, to say that it does not give them any right to go on to these places without the owner's permission.

LORD RAGLAN

Suppose it was desirable in some cases that persons should be able to drive over a certain place is it clear who has power to give the lawful authority?

EARL RUSSELL

I think that is a very difficult question, both in regard to commons and foreshores. It is a very difficult question who can give the lawful authority, but I will consider that, and see whether I can give the noble Lord any better answer on Third Reading. The foreshore sometimes belongs to the Crown, but a good many portions of foreshore have been alienated from the Crown into private hands. It is undesirable, as I said in Committee, that you should prevent such a thing as a race on Pendine sands, which would do no harm to anybody, if the local authority or whoever has the power gave the permission. But this question of cars running up and down the country in all sorts of places where cars should not be has become a public nuisance and it would not be a bad thing to do something to check it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF TFIAME

My Lords, instead of criticising the noble Earl, I should like to thank him for bringing forward this clause. I think it does meet the point which I raised in Committee about dangerous driving in these places.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble Earl says, I think it would be desirable to insert words to make it clear it is not intended to give a right to commit a trespass on land within fifteen yards of the road without leave of the owner. It would be well to put in some words to say that this gives no right to commit a trespass or to do anything without the consent of the owner.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14:

Punishment of persons driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs.

14.—(1) Any person who when driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge of, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or when in charge of." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Raglan on the Committee stage. There seems to be no reason why anybody should be penalised as long as he is not driving. The clause as it stands seems to me in the main a very good one because it is the first time we have had a really satisfactory definition of when a person is drunk. I think we shall have accomplished all that is really necessary if we say any person who when driving or attempting to drive—which after all is the important thing—a motor vehicle is under the influence of drink. My noble friend Viscount Brentford gave a pathetic case of a lady who, finding herself in an unfit condition to drive, subsided in the car and waited until she had recovered. That seems to me a perfectly proper thing to do in the circumstances. I think it would be rather hard to make anyone in such a case subject to a penalty and therefore I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 16, leave out ("or when in charge of").—(Earl Howe.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment because it occurs to me that a person in charge of a motor car might get it into his head suddenly to start the car. The police ought not to be forced to stand over him to see whether he did start it. They ought to be able to take action at once.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, when I moved this Amendment in Committee many arguments were used by myself and also by noble friends which I thought were cogent and I thought they also seemed cogent to the noble Earl because he promised to report them to the Minister. I had hoped that he would he able to report that he had been successful in getting this Amendment accented.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I have, as I said in Committee, some sympathy with this Amendment, and I should be glad if I saw my way to accept it, but my right hon. friend the Home Secretary after consulting his advisers takes the very strong view twat a great many people who ought properly to be convicted would escape if this Amendment were accepted. Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept it. These cases which we have heard of are very unfortunate cases in which people ought not to be prosecuted, and I hope the police will be instructed not to take them in charge merely because they are sleeping in the car. But the police must have liberty to use discretion and the Home Secretary does not feel that he can accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I imagine that if anybody incapable of having proper control was merely sleeping in the car the case would not be considered so serious.

EARL RUSSELL

They would be voluntary boarders.

THE MARQUEES OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl is not able to accept; this Amendment. I think my noble friend was quite entitled to raise the matter again, because the noble Earl was good enough to say that he would consider the matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage. I have read carefully the Report of the debate in Committee and I did not find any argument advanced why the words should remain in the Bill. It does seem to me that unless a person is driving or attempting to drive a car it does not matter in the least to the public what is his condition of sobriety or the reverse. I do not see why the words are included. The noble Earl has told us that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs thinks otherwise, but he has omitted to give us the facts upon which the Home Secretary relies. I must confess that I think we should have been better pleased in this House if he had been able to tell us why it is considered that there are strong reasons for the retention of the phrase. If the noble Earl does not wish at this time of the evening to go into it I would ask him again to consider the matter.

EARL RUSSELL

Perhaps the Amendment might be put down again on the Third Reading and perhaps the noble Marquess would allow me to give him any information I can obtain before then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15:

Restriction on pillion riding.

15.—(1) It shall not be lawful for more than one person in addition to the driver to be carried on any two-wheeled motor cycle, nor shall it be lawful for any such one person to be so carried otherwise than sitting astride the cycle and on a proper seat securely fixed to the cycle.

EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "behind the driver's seat." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment, although it may seem a small matter, because it sometimes happens that the driver of a motor cycle sits upon the petrol tank and the so-called pillion rider sits upon the proper saddle. As this regulation is intended to be in the interests of safety we want to make sure that both persons are on the proper seats.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 4, after ("cycle") insert ("behind the driver's seat").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17:

Restriction on the number of trailers drawn.

17.—(1) The number of trailers, if any, which may be drawn by a motor vehicle shall not exceed— (b) in the case of a motor tractor, one, if laden, or two, if unladen; or such less number as may be prescribed in relation to vehicles of the respective classes aforesaid.

(2) For the purposes of this section the expression "trailer" shall not include any vehicle used solely for carrying water for the purposes of the drawing vehicle or any vehicle not constructed to carry a load.

EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "one, if laden, or two, if unladen," and to insert "two." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is obvious. What we do not understand is why it should be necessary to have this provision in the case of a motor vehicle if it is not necessary in the case of a heavy motor vehicle. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to explain.

Amendment moved— Page 16, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("one, if laden, or two, if unladen") and insert ("two").—(Earl Howe.)

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I can answer the question of the noble Earl. The reason is that a heavy locomotive is a heavy locomotive. Some motor tractors are very small and light and if they were drawing two heavily laden trailers the whole thing would not be under good or proper control. As far as it goes it is a concession and a relaxation of the existing law that a motor tractor should be allowed to draw two unladen trailers, but we could not agree to two laden trailers. That would not be safe.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "any," to insert "agricultural". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 37, after ("any") insert ("agricultural").—(Earl Russell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18:

Limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty.

18.—(1) With a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue, it is hereby enacted that it shall not be lawful for any person to cause or permit any person employed by him, or subject to his orders, to drive—

1. (a) any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act;
2. (b) any heavy locomotive, light locomotive or motor tractor; or
3. (c) any motor vehicle constructed to carry goods other than the effects of passengers;

to remain on duty for any continuous period of more than five hours or for more than ten hours in the aggregate in any consecutive twenty-four hours.

(2) For the purpose of this section any two or more periods of time shall be deemed to be a continuous period unless separated by an interval of not less than half-an-hour in which the driver is able to obtain rest and refreshment, and a person shall be deemed to remain on duty so long as he is engaged on work, whether in the capacity of driver or in some other capacity, in connection with the vehicle.

(3) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that a person shall not be liable to be convicted under this section if he proves to the court that the contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of any journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen.

EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice to move a series of Amendments to the clause, said: My Lords, I think the best course would be for me to read the clause as it will appear if the Amendments of which I have given Notice are accepted. This is a clause dealing with the length of time during which drivers of public service vehicles and other heavy vehicles may be on duty. I told your Lordships when the Bill was previously before the House that it was intended that the clause should be entirely recast. That has been a very difficult matter. It has involved a great many conferences with employers and employed, and I am sorry to say that the Minister—he himself is still more sorry—will be left with a certain limited dispensing power. It has been found impossible to settle the clause without that. Owing to the circumstances which operate in the trade it was necessary to have some loophole left.

If your Lordships will allow me I will now read the clause as it will appear after amendment:—

18.—(1) With a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue, it is hereby enacted that it shall not be lawful in the case of—

1. (a) any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act;
2. (b) any heavy locomotive, light locomotive or motor tractor; or
3. (c) any motor vehicle constructed to carry goods other than the effects of passengers;

for any person to drive, or cause or permit any person employed by him or subject to his orders to drive, the vehicle—

1. (i) for any continuous period of more than five hours and one half; or
157
2. (ii) for continuous periods amounting in the aggregate to more than eleven hours in any period of twenty-four hours commencing two hours after midnight; or
3. (iii) for such periods that the driver is not allowed an interval of at least ten hours for rest in every consecutive twenty-four hours:

The expression "two hours after midnight" is used in (ii) because it is a curious thing that in the omnibus schedules two hours after midnight is, so to speak, zero hour, not midnight. That is why it is chosen. There are some very complicated schedules of omnibus driving. Provided that it shall be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of paragraph (iii) to allow at least nine hours for rest in a period of twenty-four hours if the driver is allowed an interval of twelve hours for rest in the next following period of twenty-four hours.

(2) For the purpose 3f this section—

1. (a) any two or more periods of time shall be deemed to be a continuous period unless separated by an interval of not less than half-an-hour in which the driver is able to obtain rest and refreshment; and
2. (b) any periods spent by the driver on other work in connection with a vehicle or the load carried thereby, including, in the case of a public service vehicle, any time spent on the vehicle in any other capacity than as a passenger shall be reckoned as time spent in driving the vehicle.

Now comes the dispensation clause, which unfortunately we were not able to do without:—

(3) The Minister may on the application of a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, or on a joint application, by such organisations, representative of employers and workpeople in the industry, as the Minister of Labour may certify to be proper bodies to make such an application, and after referring the matter to the Industrial Court for advice, by order vary the periods of time prescribed in this section, provided that he is of opinion that such variation is not likely to be detrimental to the public safety.

(4) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence: Provided that a person shall not be liable to be convicted under this section if he proves to the court that the contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of any journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen.

That is the result of very prolonged deliberations and consultations with everybody concerned, and I understand that the clause in that form will be work- able and satisfactory to those engaged in the industry as directors, as owners of vehicles and as employees. I think that perhaps, as a matter of convenience, it would be better to move the insertion of the complete clause in this form.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I was going to suggest, subject to your Lordships' assent, that the best course—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that it would be best to put the Question in the simplest possible form. I was going to suggest to the noble Earl that we should adjourn the debate now so that we may see the clause in its continuous form in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

EARL RUSSELL

I think the best course would be to put the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That would be the simplest form. The Question is, That Clause 18 stand part of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would now venture to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that the best way would be to adjourn now. We shall be able to read the clause in continuous form in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning. It is far too complicated and, let me add, far too important to be passed without some consideration.

EARL RUSSELL

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, and I entirely agree to that course, which I think is quite reasonable. Let me take this opportunity of saying that I hope to continue the discussion of this Bill to-morrow after the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, which I understand is not likely to take very long. I hope that we may be able to finish before dinner but, if we do not, I hope that your Lordships will be willing to sit after dinner to dispose of the Report stage of this Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that will be quite reasonable.

The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Leeds Corporation.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.