Lords Sitting of 23 January 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS AND OMNI BUSES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Rothesay tramways and omnibuses; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think it would be convenient if, before we go into the details of the Report stage, I made a very short statement as to the attitude of the Government towards the Amendments which appear upon the Paper. I desire in doing this—and it is one of the reasons for my doing it—to treat the House with all respect on a complicated matter of this character. Most of the Amendments are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Salisbury, and I think I am right in saying that all of them are in the nature of drafting Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are all consequential.
LORD PARMOOR: Therefore I do not propose to put the noble Marquess to the trouble of going through them all.
162
But on the last Amendment, at the end of Clause 19, I think a question might arise, so if he would take that by itself there are one or two matters that my noble friend Lord Arnold would tike to call attention to in connection with it. The other Amendments, however, are consequential on the Amendment which was carried on Tuesday. Of course, we cannot seek to alter the opinion of the House at this stage on a point of that kind.
There are also two other Amendments. Perhaps I may say a word on an Amendment to Clause 7 which has only just been put into my hands, in the name of Lord Cozens-Hardy. I would suggest to him that if he wants that Amendment fairly considered it would be much more advantageous for him to move it after the Third Reading, for I have not had any time to consider it. I understand also that it has not been seen by the Lord Chancellor, whose opinion we value on matters of this kind. It is well within the right of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, to bring it forward if he likes, although it is not among the Marshalled Amendments, but I am suggesting to him that the more prudent course, if he wants this matter fully discussed, would be not to press it at this stage but to deal with it, as he could equally well do, after the Third Reading. That is a matter for his consideration.
The other Amendment is in the name of Lord Darling, who suggests a new clause after Clause 3. We have expressed our view more than once on maintaining Clause 4 as it was placed in the Bill. We do not want to trouble your Lordships with unnecessary Divisions. We shall, of course, wait and hear what Lord Darling has to say, but I do not see that his Amendment is likely to raise any different question from that which was raised in the first instance. We shall have to insist on the form of the clause, and, as your Lordships are well aware, when this Bill goes down to another place that will be the forth that we shall attempt to reintroduce. I do not want to go into any question of Privilege, except to say that in our opinion these are Privilege Amendments. Of course, we often put in Privilege Amendments, and then put in the clause afterwards. There is no harm in that, but these are matters primarily for the decision of the House of Commons, and we regard them from that point of view. I have only said

163
these few words in order that I might shorten the discussion as much as possible. We have a good deal more work to do to-night before we adjourn, and I hope your Lordships will consider that the course which I have suggested is a convenient one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the courteous tone of his speech. With regard to the Amendments which stand in my name, they are all designed to be consequential. If it should turn out that one of them has strayed beyond that strict limit I shall be very glad to be corrected by the Paymaster-General when he comes to deal with it. With regard to the question of Privilege, everyone knows that Privilege is becoming every day more and more a sham. The Government themselves in the course of this Bill here have inserted Amendments on their own Motion which are a breach of the Privilege of the House of Commons according to the strict interpretation; that is to say, Amendments moved by the Paymaster-General would have the effect of throwing an extra charge upon the taxpayers. He did not make any apology for doing that and I did not wish him to make an apology; anyway he did not. In another place the Government of course will make no apology and the matter will be put through directly without the least trouble. Therefore, this matter of Privilege is growing more and more threadbare almost every day. I will not say that every Bill which comes to your Lordships' House, but one out of every two Bills involves Amendments in your Lordships' House which are breaches of the strict rule of Privilege. All that the House of Commons does is this: if the majority agree with the breach of Privilege the Amendments are put in and if the majority do not agree they are not put in. That is really what happens, though there is a certain form of course which is put through. I think that the great officer of State, the Speaker, calls attention to the fact of its being a breach of Privilege; but beyond the form nothing happens.
The only other reference which the noble and learned Lord made was to the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling. I will not discuss it at this moment because we shall be discussing
164
it directly. For my own part I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to produce an Amendment in place of Clause 4 which your Lordships thought fit to strike out. I will not say more than this. No one could have listened to the debate without realising that the Government did not much believe in Clause 4 themselves. The proper method which I think they should have adopted in consequence of your Lordships' action is to have put on their considering caps and considered whether they could not produce something better than Clause 4 and place, it upon the Paper for your Lordships' consideration.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Marquess is not justified in suggesting what our attitude has been towards Clause 4. Our attitude was very direct and specific—that Clause 4 from our point of view must remain in the Bill in the form in which the Bill came from another place. Had the noble Marquess thought it would have helped matters to try to re-insert Clause 4—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very glad to see that the noble Marquess shakes his head and I entirely agree with him. It would have been, I think, I will not say an insult to the House but hardly in conformity with the true dignity of the House after the very large majority by which Clause 4 was displaced to seek to re-introduce it. I think we made it clear that our policy is involved in Clause 4 and in no alteration of it. Subject to that I am obliged to the noble Marquess for what he has said, and I hope we shall not take long in dealing with the Report stage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.
4. If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for having been so audacious as to put upon the Paper an Amendment concerning this Bill. Only forty-eight hours ago your Lordships came to a conclusion upon Clause 4 which left it out of the Bill altogether. When that had occurred there was no provision whatever for dealing with this subject of payment to people who were out of work, supposing they were not attempting to obtain it. I did not expect, I must say, that matters would have been left until now in that condition. The position was this. Here was a Bill which had received the attention of His Majesty's Government, introduced with all their authority, not in the form in which they first brought the matter before the House of Commons but in a more considered shape. After considerable debate, in which the Front Bench opposite took a notable part, Clause 4 was struck out of the Bill, and this great work appeared in the form in which people have deplored to find many another piece of our literature. A gap in those circumstances is generally marked "Hiatus valde deflendus." That was the condition in which I beheld this Bill after Clause 4 had been omitted. I was almost reduced to tears to see it in that condition, and I felt that as no one else would do anything to remedy this wrong I might be pardoned for making some slight effort to redress it.
I had naturally expected that the noble and learned Lord who speaks for the Government would have bent his mind to it. I cannot think that Clause 4 is the only way in which he can think of dealing with this matter after the criticisms that were passed. It had occurred to me that, being in earnest, as I have no doubt he is, to remedy this deficiency in the provision for these people, he would have come before your Lordships with some alternative proposal. If he would not do it I thought the Paymaster-General might perhaps do it. If neither of them was ingenious enough, there was the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill relating to traffic who could have done it. None of them moved. I am not so surprised that my noble friend Lord Banbury, upon whose motion Clause 4 was left out, did not attempt to supply any alternative
166
because in the technical sense he is not a learned person.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not a learned person?
LORD DARLING: In the technical sense. The noble Lord knows many things that I have never learned, but in the technical sense what I said is correct. Therefore, I found myself in this position. I expected, as I said, some pabulum to be provided by the Front Bench opposite and there was nothing. My disappointment was such—I will not use my own words to express my feelings, but I will use those of John Milton:
"The hungry sheep look up and are not fed."
So I tried to think of something which would escape hostile criticism from noble Lords opposite. I could not satisfy myself that I had found something which would be absolutely agreeable to them, when I read in the newspaper yesterday morning that the very White Paper for which my noble friend Lord Askwith had asked, the very White Paper which, apparently, could not be prepared until this clause was thoroughly out of the way, had been laid upon the Table; which Table I do not know, nor where, but I saw that it had been laid upon the Table somewhere. So I thought that I might possibly get some inspiration from the White Paper. I got the White Paper. I have it here. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has seen it yet. He had not seen it forty-eight hours ago, and it may not yet have been brought to his notice.
It is dated January, 1930, and bears the title: "Registry of Friendly Societies. Extracts from the Rules of Registered Trade Unions in respect of the seeking of work as a condition for the receipt of Unemployment Benefit." Its price is 4d., but I was given one for nothing. I read it, and I thought I might get that inspiration which had not been supplied to me from any other source. Here, I thought, might be the very food of which I was in need. Perhaps some of your Lordships have this Paper. I find on page 8 the rule upon this matter of a trade union which has 308,046 members. It is called the National Union of Railwaymen. Here, I thought, is the very thing to conciliate my noble and learned friend Lord

167
Parmoor and the Paymaster-General and all the galaxy of talent on the Front Bench opposite, because I believe, until quite lately their colleague the Lord Privy Seal, Mr. J. H. Thomas, was the secretary of this union and must be thoroughly acquainted with this rule. As he was secretary of the society for years he must know it by heart. He must be taken to approve of it. Now, I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has not seen this White Paper; he told us so forty-eight hours ago.
LORD PARMOOR: Forty-eight hours ago I had not seen it.
LORD DARLING: Now that I have made this discovery and bring it to his notice (I thought), he will assent without question to putting this in the place left vacant by the conduct and attitude taken upon Clause 4 by my noble friend Lord Banbury. So I simply copied this rule from the rules of the National Union of Railwaymen, merely making one or two verbal changes to fit it into the place left vacant by the excision of Clause 4. The words of the National Union of Railwaymen upon this subject are these:—
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason—"
So, apparently, it is known that some of these people do refuse without reason. I have heard it questioned, but the railwaymen know they do refuse without reason, and so they say:
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason, to work when employment is found him, or not endeavouring to obtain employment, shall forfeit his claim to the benefit …."
Note the words "or not endeavouring to obtain employment." That casts upon him the doing of the act which should bring wages to him. They do not say that the secretary must go cap in hand and say: "I have found you a job; will you condescend to accept it?" No, they say: "If you who claim this benefit do not endeavour to obtain employment you shall forfeit your claim to the benefit."
In the last Session your Lordships may perhaps recollect I called your attention to a Statute of Henry VIII which is still in force, which entitles the Lord Privy Seal to come to your Lordships' House, to sit there upon the "sacks," as they are called in the Statute. From his place there, as Professor Pollard, who wrote upon the subject, believes, the Lord Privy
168
Seal is entitled to address your Lordships. This is the Minister to whom it has been confided to solve the problem of unemployment. He was the secretary of this very union, and for all I know he may have drafted this rule. He must know of it, and he must approve of it. He must have seen it acted upon over and over again and I had hoped—but one is so often disappointed in one's dearest anticipations—I had hoped that he might have been here to contribute to this debate from the position which the Statute of Henry VIII gives him a right to occupy. He is not. But now that I have read to your Lordships this rule, and have shown you exactly where I take it from, with all humility trying to assist my noble and learned friend Lord Par-moor and his colleagues, I do hope that they will show some sense of gratitude. I hope that instead of saying: "No, we are quite content to leave this blank from which Clause 4 has been excised," they will say: "Here is a locus penitentiæ offered to us; we will take it; we will accept words which have the approval of the Lord Privy Seal; we will not put the House to a Division upon this, but we will assent to the clause being included in the Bill." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, speaking for myself I am very glad indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, has raised this question. The day before yesterday I voted in favour of the Government to maintain Clause 4, not because I was particularly in love with the wording of Clause 4 but because I thought that after this House had accepted without a Division the Second Reading of the Bill it was hardly fair to the Government to introduce what was in reality a wrecking Amendment, and not even to suggest, I will not say to move, but not even to suggest a direction in which the rejected clause might be improved. I confess it did not seem to me to be consistent with what I regard as the duty of this House as a revising Chamber, the principle of the Bill having been already accepted. Therefore I am exceedingly glad that the noble and learned Lord has enabled us to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering the question.

169
I do not know that there is anything I need add to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, but I would point out—I think possibly this may commend itself to the occupants of the Government Benches—that I do not entirely agree with him as to the onus of proof in regard to the Amendment which he has put down, because, although it says, or implies, that it is the duty of an applicant for unemployment pay to be looking out for employment, yet the onus is upon somebody else to show he is not doing so. The words are perfectly clear:
"If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved"—
That is to say, proved by somebody other than the claimant—
"that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if be proved"—
That again means proved by somebody other than the claimant—
"that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be."
Now I submit that this is a very proper and a very praiseworthy effort to persuade this House to put itself right not only in its own eyes but in the eyes of the public. I can hardly conceive any more unpopular action on the part of this House than that it should throw out a clause of this sort without suggesting any Amendment which would improve it and make it more workable. I shall certainly support the noble and learned Lord if he goes to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I also am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling has brought in this Amendment, but I think, although I am not learned, I can point out to him that he has made a mistake in the drafting. My noble and learned friend Lord Darling proposes that the words shall be:—
"If on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, …."
And later his proposed new clause goes on:—
"or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment …."
170
The result of that is, as was pointed out by the noble Lord who has just spoken, to put the onus of proof upon the labour exchanges. If the noble and learned Lord will look at page 8 of the White Paper which has been just issued he will see that the words used by the National Union of Railwaymen are these. I am reading them, without any alteration, or without omitting any of them:—
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason, to work when employment is found him, or not endeavouring to obtain employment, shall forfeit his claim to the benefit."
If the noble and learned Lord will consent to leave out the words "it be proved that" in the first line and the words "it be proved that" in lines 3 and 4 of his proposed new clause, the clause would then read:—
"If, on a claim for benefit, the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be."
That Amendment would make the clause of my noble and learned friend correspond exactly with the words of the regulation of the Railwaymen's Union. If he would allow me, I should, if he goes to a Division with the Amendment as I suggest, be extremely pleased to tell with him. I therefore, beg to move to leave out in line 1 the words "it be proved that" and to leave out in lines 3 and 4 the words "it be proved that."
Amendments to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 1, leave out ("it be proved that").
Lines 3 and 4, leave out ("it be proved that.")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think that all members of the House, unless they have studied the Bill carefully, can be quite aware of the points of difference between the Amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, and the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, is practically the trade union regulation, but with the additional security to the man that it is not to be alleged against him without proof that he has not attempted to obtain employment or to discharge the duties which the trade union regards

171
it as necessary he should discharge. I do not know whether your Lordships will consider it wiser to go as far as Lord Darling proposes to go or whether you think Lord Banbury's more drastic proposal should be accepted; but there is one point I should like to put to your Lordships because it has not yet been said in the debate, and that is that one or other of these Amendments must be accepted or some similar Amendment must be put in. Otherwise the Bill would be in an inchoate state which it would not be in character with the dignity of this House to send to another place. Clause 6 of the Bill enacts a difference in the existing arrangement for testing the genuineness of the applicant. Clause 6 of the Bill is still there. Therefore, if Clause 4 remains out, without any words being inserted, there would be absolutely no process whatever which any applicant can go through to obtain any benefit that he wishes to receive. That would be an absurdity.
I would make an appeal to the Government that they should give the House some guidance. We know that their view is that Clause 4 must be restored to the Bill. That view has not been supported as far as I know by any speech from any member of the Government. They have not in any way succeeded in proving to your Lordships why this drastic change which was made in the Bill during its passage in another place, transferring the onus from the man to the labour exchange, should be preferred to the trade union rule which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, has proposed to your Lordships to-night. I earnestly trust that we shall hear from the Government what their view is as between the two Amendments. I trust that whether we vote for one Amendment or another, we shall at least make the Bill consonant with the views expressed.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down I find myself in a difficulty in deciding between these two Amendments. So far I have heard arguments from only one side of the House to help me to make up my mind which is the better for the Bill. Noble Lords opposite have maintained a conspiracy of silence all through this debate. I quite understand that they may not
172
want to disagree with their colleague, the Lord Privy Seal. I can quite see that this might cause dissension in the Cabinet, but I do hope that, even at the grave risk of any trouble like that, they will give us some idea of the arguments against the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, so that we may be able to make up our minds what is the best thing to do to improve this Bill.
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, before we decide the matter which is before us, I should like to suggest that we might be instructed by my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment. It appears to me that the Amendment to the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend Lord Banbury would make no difference whatever to the sense of Lord Darling's Amendment. Your Lordships will see from the Amendment as it stands on the Paper that something has to be decided by the court of referees. That court will have to decide whether a claimant "has refused, and refuses, without reason," and so forth. Is that not exactly the same thing as saying: "If it be proved that"? Really, the court of referees cannot decide that question unless it is proved to their satisfaction that the claimant "has refused, and refuses, without reason to work," and it appears to me, therefore, that the Amendments proposed by Lord Banbury would not alter the meaning of Lord Darling's Amendment in the smallest degree.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that I was disrespectful to the House. I think I stated as plainly as I could that our view was and remains what it always has been—namely, that Clause 4 should be in the form in which it came from another place. I agree, of course, with the noble Earl that it is almost impossible to frame the language of the Bill intelligibly without putting in something in place of Clause 4. But that is not our responsibility. Whether it is a question of onus one way or another is a matter into which I will not enter. The question that Lord Cushendun has raised is not our responsibility. We have stated most clearly what our position is, and we certainly cannot alter that position at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not contributed a very great deal to your Lordships' consideration of this matter. Of course he has contributed courtesy—he always contributes courtesy—but I say quite plainly that he has not contributed very much else. There has been a rather remarkable circumstance since the debate which took place in your Lordships' House two days ago—namely, the laying of a White Paper upon the Table. I had not seen the White Paper until I came down here, but I have done my best to glance through the rules of the trade unions. I think twenty-six examples are given here, and certainly in twenty-five out of the twenty-six it is made a provision of the granting of out-of-work pay that the unemployed workman shall have done his best to find work. In every case except one—and I am not certain that I could not include the one—an obligation is laid upon the unemployed man to do his best, in some form or other, to find work. All the diatribes about the hardships thrown upon the worker which, I have no doubt, were indulged in in another place disappear. The workers themselves, when called upon to legislate for their own relief of unemployment, use the very same method which the Opposition are denounced for advocating in Parliament. Why in the world do not the Government follow the advice and example of the trade unions? The Government have to explain that. It is no good getting up at the Table, if I may say so with all consideration to the noble and learned Lord, and saying that the Government cannot vary from the position which they have taken up.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, they cannot. That is true. They will not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They will not?
LORD PARMOOR: They cannot.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is much more likely to be "cannot" than "will not."
LORD PARMOOR: Both of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government are called upon to defend this before Parliament and the country. They have not followed the practical advice of the trade unions. It is sometimes
174
thought that noble Lords who sit on this side of the House are in some way opposed to the trade unions. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as I aim concerned, that is not the case. I believe that the trade unions are an essential part of our industrial equipment and that we could not do without them. I have always said so. For my part I should have been ready to avail myself of their assistance far more than the Government have shown themselves ready to do. If the Government had definitely included in the Bill provisions under which they would have used the trade unions as intermediaries through whose agency they could have ascertained whether a particular unemployed man was genuinely seeking work or not, personally I should have been very glad to consider that suggestion in the most favourable spirit. I see no reason in the world why we should not avail ourselves of the co-operation of the trade unions in matters of this kind. After all, they are very well acquainted with the work. They do it every day and they know far better than most people what is in the mind and what are the convictions of the working class. Why should we not have availed ourselves of them? I have always been in favour of that, and there is an example.
Here are the trade union rules, in the White Paper laid before Parliament, in which in every single case except one—and I am not quite sure about that one—the rules provide that the unemployed worker, before he receives any benefit, is to have shown some evidence of his efforts to find work for himself. Why is that ignored? Why have not the Government anything to say in explanation of their inconsistency with the trade union example? There they are, a number of very able men sitting in a row, and yet they have nothing to say except that all is done that can be done. We want to know why the trade union example has not been followed. My noble and learned friend comes before your Lordships' House and proposes to embody, in a substitute for Clause 4, phraseology taken out of one of the trade union rules. I think that the drafting of such a clause can be properly undertaken only by the Government itself. We have not access to all the information which is at the disposal of the Govern-

175
ment, and personally I should not like to be responsible for advising your Lordships to adopt any particular form of words in substitution for Clause 4. But that does not prevent my saying that Clause 4 is a very bad clause, and that your Lordships, if I may say so respectfully, did very right in striking it out of the Bill. That clause has gone. We call upon the Government to consider once snore their position. We call upon them to read the White Paper themselves, and we call upon them to provide some further guidance to your Lordships than the speech to which we have just listened from the Leader of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with feelings of very real apprehension and fear. It seems to me that the noble Lords beside me are gradually drifting into an opposition, a constant and irreconcilable opposition, to His Majesty's Government such as they were drifting into twenty years ago in this House. In the end it led to a clash, the result of which I believe every member of your Lordships' House sitting on this side deplores profoundly to-day. I do hope we shall take a lesson from what happened twenty years ago and not act in the same way as certain of your Lordships did on that occasion. If I might say something more particularly in regard to this Bill, it is to support His Majesty's Government in their position. This position happened over and over again twenty and twenty-five years ago. The Opposition of that day constantly took out provisions of a Bill which were thought vital and the omission of which was fatal to the Bill. On many occasions noble Lords on this side of the House used to implore us to amend their Amendments so as to make them more practicable and useful than they were. I do not think on any occasion we assumed such a responsibility. We said then, as I believe His Majesty's Government say now, that it was no part of our duty to amend Amendments with the very principle of which we profoundly disagreed. If they put an Amendment in the Bill vitally altering it, then the responsibility lies with those who make the Amendment and it is for them to introduce such alterations as are necessary to bring it into harmony with the rest of the Bill. Therefore I have some sympathy with the Government in this respect.
176
Is there not something in what the noble Marquess has said which would really persuade him that this is not the proper place to deal with this question? He has called attention to the practice of a number of trade unions. Are there not in another place members of trade unions intimately acquainted with this question, who are accustomed to administer the very regulations to which he has drawn attention Would it not be better for them to be asked to make such Amendments if they think Amendments are desirable in that House, whether the Amendments are in accordance with the provisions of the Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government or not? It would be an admirable thing if these people, who are intimately acquainted with this very position, were asked to deal with it rather than that we should be asked to deal with it. It is evident from the very nature of the thing that these regulations drawn up by members of trade unions for members of trade unions would find much more able technical critics in another place than we can find here. Therefore, I hope His Majesty's Government will not think it necessary to make any alterations or suggest any Amendments beyond the Bill as they have introduced it into your Lordships' House.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am really astonished at the speech of the noble Earl, the Leader of the Liberal Party. He seems in a very timorous mood this afternoon. I do not know what has made him adopt this attitude. Perhaps it is that so few of his followers followed him into the Lobby on this very Amendment. I believe they were only two or three and now one of his supporters, Lord Sandhurst, says this afternoon he was very sorry he did go into that Lobby. The reason the noble Lord gave was that there was nothing in the Bill in place of the omitted clause and as far as I understand the noble Lord is now going to vote for one of my noble friends' Amendments. It is not a very wise or courteous course for this House to send back this Bill to the other place without Clause 4. It makes the Bill look foolish and all we are trying to do is to remedy a gap which the Government ought to make good. The noble Lord has told us that we must always agree, but I always thought that this House was a House of revision. What are we here for if we are always to

177
agree with what is put up by the other House? We might as well be abolished at once, and I would prefer that rather than come here and be told we must always agree with whatever Amendment or proposal is put forward by whatever Party is in power.
That is not the right way to deal with public business. I suggest we should make good the gap this afternoon and I am really astonished that the Government have not told us whether these rules of the trade unions were considered or were known to them when the Bill was passing through the House of Commons. Were they or not? We have never had an answer on that point. They are laid before us marked "January." It is most important for us to know whether these rules were present to the minds of the Cabinet when the measure originally came before the House of Commons. After all, this Party has never been against trade unions. These rules were made by those who know the work of workmen best, the trade unionists themselves. They are made to protect those men who are working or genuinely seeking work from the depletion of their funds by those who are unworthy of support. In the same way it is our duty here to protect the public purse from people who are making inroads upon it that might not to be made. I am really surprised at finding that the Government do not deign to answer our question. There are eight noble Lords on the Government Benches at this moment and they remind me of Mr. Disraeli's phrase: "A lot of extinct volcanoes." I am sorry it has come to that so early in the history of this Government and I hope that, before the debate closes, the Paymaster-General, who knows everything about this Bill and even corrected the Leader of the House about the Amendment on the Paper, will tell us this afternoon whether that White Paper, which has been so grudgingly furnished to us this afternoon at the latest moment, was in possession of the Cabinet when the Bill was discussed in another place. We are entitled to an answer on an important question of that kind, because then the House can decide what it is going to do on the respective Amendments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I point out that on page 2 of the White
178
Paper Sir George Robertson's letter is dated "January 15," a, week ago?
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I hardly agree with my noble friend's comparison of the Government Bench to a range of extinct volcanoes. Volcanic they may be, but some of them have never begun to erupt at all. I think that they must be internally bubbling with heated convulsions about this question on which, I suppose, they are putting a stopper by the process of sitting on one another and keeping it down. The fact is that without further communication with another place, without seeing what is going to happen there, the Government Bench here are not going to commit themselves to anything. They take refuge in the legal question, which is embodied in the old Clause 4, and that is the burden of proof. Which of two parties is the one to begin? It is often a very nice question in litigation, and the person who can hold the tongue the longer is sometimes at considerable advantage; but it is not a position of great dignity for Ministers of the Crown in your Lordships' House to be doing their very best to keep to themselves the policy which they propose to lay before the Government in the event, which they have no right to exclude, of your Lordships' action in striking out Clause 4 meeting with acceptance in another place.
The Lord President is not only a most prominent and influential and experienced member of the Government, but he is also Leader of this House, and we are entitled to look to him for guidance, and to his colleagues for assistance, but he has taken up the attitude—not without some encouragement from, I hardly venture to call him his ally, but from his friendly critic—of saying: "We will have our own way or we will have none, and you may say what you like about Bills in this House, but when we get them back to another place nothing will come of it, and we will have our own way as before." However it may be dressed up in words, that is not, I venture to say, the way in which to treat your Lordships, and I do not think you ought to be intimidated when it is practised upon your Lordships, by your being told that if you are not careful the events of 1911 may recur. There are some people who never can forget the

179
events of 1911. Like the words of Mr. Cobden, they seem to be an obsession.
It is obvious that this Bill is an administrative measure, difficult to work if there is nothing corresponding to Clause 4. But why is the Government, which said that this Bill was necessary and brought it before the Legislature, to refuse now to withdraw the Bill and yet say it will have no more to do with it? Why is it to be allowed to contend that a Bill, owing to a perfectly legitimate Amendment, has been interfered with, and say: "Unless we have Clause 4 as it came to this House, we will not say another word in your Lordships' House at all"? Clause 4 in this House is not the clause as it started in another place. Second thoughts may be best, and this was a second thought. Nobody exactly knows how the original Clause 4 suffered change and became the deceased Clause 4. The attitude which the Government take up by the mouth of the Lord President is that they will have no more to say about Clause 4 No. 2, mark you, not about Clause 4 No. 1. Of course, debate is killed under that system. If there are two sides, but one side will not say anything, you cannot have debate. You can only have dissertation, and I think it is contrary to the place which your Lordships' House is entitled to hold in the legislative system that we should be treated in this way.
On Question, Amendments to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Repeal of fourth statutory condition]:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Examination and determination of claims]:
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had given Notice of two Amendments, including one to insert a new subsection after subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I have
180
ventured to put down is one which does not contain any principle to which I think the Government would object. It has reference to the definition of "reasonable" under trade union rules. I hope that time for consideration will enable the Government to accept the Amendment in some such form as I propose. Therefore I accept the suggestion of Lord Parmoor and do not press the Amendments now.
Clause 15 [Further amendment of s. 14 (12) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 30]:
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minor Amendments]:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("be made") and insert ("have effect")
Page 11, line 22, at end insert ("until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19:
Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and commencement.
(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and no longer.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("are hereby repealed") and insert ("shall")
Page 12, line 31, at end insert ("cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of the last subsection, to insert "and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed." The noble Marquess said:
My Lords, I understand that the Government have some observations to make upon this Amendment, and, of course, I will be willing to be guided by them.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, at end insert ("and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the only observation I have to make is that we shall be prepared to go to a Division upon this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not intended to say anything disrespect
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments.

Enactments to be amended.

Amendment.

—

—

The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920:

Section 5

Subsection (5) shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of sixty five years or upwards, be deemed to have been repealed as from the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty eight.

ful to the noble Lord. He will perhaps help the House if he will say why he objects to this Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Leader of the House at the beginning of business. We did not trouble your Lordships with a Division on Lord Darling's Amendment, but we shall do so on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Linlithgow, M.

Falkland, V.

Greenwood, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hayter, L.

Bradford, E.

Knutsford, V.

Heneage, L.

Clarendon, E.

Sumner, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cottenham, E.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lamington, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Abinger, L.

Leigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alvingham, L.

Lloyd, L.

Howe, E.

Armstrong, L.

Luke, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Monkswell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Raglan, L.

Midleton, E.

Byron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Sandwich, E.

Danesfort, L.

St. Levan, L.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Saltoun, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sinclair, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dulverton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in the reference to Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to leave out all words after "be" and to insert "repealed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in explanation of this Amendment I desire to say that in December, 1927, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour issued a leaflet (309X) for the information of employers, giving particulars of employers' contributions payable on and after January 2, 1928, for employed persons of sixty-five years and upwards. In paragraph 2 (b) of the leaflet it is stated that contributions are payable by

183
an employer, notwithstanding that the employed person may be over seventy years of age or in the enjoyment of an old age pension. Now the Corporation of Huddersfield, on whose behalf I have the honour of introducing this Amendment, had in January, 1928, several old servants over the age of seventy in receipt of the old age pension. They kept these employees on for a few hours each week in order to give them a little extra money, having regard to the long period during which they had served the Corporation. It is really an act of charity.
The Town Clerk of Huddersfield advised his Corporation that the statement in the leaflet so far as it related to the liability of an employer to pay contributions in respect of these old age pensioners over the age of seventy, was wrong as subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920—which reads as follows—
"Contributions shall not be payable in respect of any person who is in receipt of an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1919"—
had not been repealed. The Town Clerk communicated his contention to the Minister of Labour and received a reply that the Minister was advised that Section 5 (5) must be regarded as repealed by Section 31 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, so far as persons of 65 years of age and over were concerned. The Town Clerk of Huddersfield again communicated with the Minister of Labour disagreeing with this contention, and subsequently received a letter dated January 24, 1928, from the Secretary stating that the Minister of Labour fully appreciated that the question raised was one of considerable difficulty. It would seem that the Minister had some doubt as to the merits of his contention. The Secretary then went on to say that unless and until the matter was otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction the Minister of Labour was bound to act upon the advice he had received.
That correspondence took place in January, 1928. The Corporation of Huddersfield heard nothing further in regard to this matter until February, 1929. I ask your Lordships to note that more than a full year passed without the Minister of Labour attempting to do anything.
184
He, therefore, must have been very uncertain and doubtful in his own mind about what action to take. On February 22, however, the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour wrote a letter to the Town Clerk of Huddersfield stating that the Minister of Labour felt obliged to endeavour to enforce payment by the Corporation of Huddersfield for contributions in respect of these old age pensioners, and so to obtain a decision of the Court on the point in question. The solicitor went on to say that he had been instructed to take proceedings by way of Attorney-General's information. Thereupon the Corporation of Huddersfield took counsel's opinion, and were definitely advised by counsel that in his opinion subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, was not repealed by Section 31 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and that the view of the Corporation as expressed in their letters to the Ministry of Labour was the correct one.
There was some further correspondence upon the matter and eventually on December 17, 1929, the Town Clerk of Huddersfield received a letter, dated December 16, from the assistant solicitor of the Ministry of Labour to this effect:—
"In the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is at present before Parliament amongst other suggested amendments of enactments is the following: 'Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Section 5, subsection (5), shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of 65 years or upwards, be deemed to have ceased as from the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, to have effect.'"
The solicitor went on to say:—
"In the circumstances, I am instructed to take no further action until the Bill has become law."
The clear inference from this statement is that the Ministry of Labour contemplate proceeding against the Corporation of Huddersfield so soon as the Bill becomes law, should it be passed as it stands, either for penalties for failing to stamp as from January 2, 1928, or for payment of unpaid contributions. The Corporation take very strong exception to the underhand course which the Ministry of Labour has adopted. It is clear that the Minister is now of opinion that he was wrongly advised and that the view of the Corporation was right, and the

185
Ministry are endeavouring to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they are placed by introducing this retrospective legislation.
I submit that restrospective legislation has always been repulsive to English ideas of right, equity and justice. Even so far back as the eighteenth century, the great and learned jurist and interpreter of the law, John Marshall, in drawing up the Constitution of the United States, inserted a clause making retrospective legislation unconstitutional, and so it has remained ever since in that vast dominion of the United States of America. I have heard this question raised several times in your Lordships' Chamber since I had the honour of listening to your deliberations, and you have always condemned it. I hope you will condemn it on this occasion and not allow this Bill to pass into law with this provision in it. The Unemployment Insurance Bill had passed its Third Reading in another place on December 17 and it was impossible, therefore, for the Corporation of Huddersfield to take exception to the working of the Bill as it now- stands through a Member of Parliament. I suggest, therefore, that the Second Schedule be amended so that paragraph to which my Amendment refers can only operate as from the coming into law of this measure. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name in order to bring about this desired result.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert ("repealed").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord and explained so fully and clearly deals with a comparatively small but a real point which arose in the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The position is that when the Widows' Pensions Act of 1925 was passed it was provided that contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be paid in respect of persons over sixty-five at the exempted persons rate as it is called—that is, the contributions should be paid by the employers and by the State, though they were not paid by the employed man himself. This provision did not exclude the case of a person in receipt of an old age pension at the age of seventy under the Old Age Pensions
186
Acts which were in operation before that Act. There was an ambiguity as to whether up to the age of seventy no contributions at all were payable in respect of persons in receipt of old age pensions, or whether they should be payable at the exempted persons rate. The Department had advice on the subject, and they were advised that the provisions of the Widows' Pensions Act of 1925 prevailed. That meant contributions were payable at the exempted persons rate by all those over sixty-five after January, 1928, the date when the pensions to persons over sixty-five began to be paid. This provision is put in the Bill in order to give effect to this advice from that date, and the noble Lord desires that it should not go back to that date.
He does not object, I gather—because he leaves those words in the Amendment—to the Amendment operating as from the passage of this Bill, but he says he does not want this provision to be retrospective. He cites the case which he put very fully before your Lordships and which I will say a word about, the case of Huddersfield. I cannot, see my way to accept his Amendment, because I think this little matter ought to be put right, and put right back to the date of January, 1928. If that is not done, there is a certain ambiguity still remaining. I will say this to the noble Lord in reply to his speech, that so far as the Huddersfield Corporation are concerned, no proceedings will be taken against them for the interim period between that date and the passage of this Bill, but they, like all employers of the persons in question, will have to pay in future after the passage of this Bill. It is not really a big point, as your Lordships will see. I think that if the matter were elaborated more fully it would be clear that what has been done in what I may call this interim period has really been in accordance with what was always the intention of the Act going back to 1920. As a matter of fact, there ought to have been in the 1925 Act a repeal of one little subsection in the 1920 Act. That was not done. It was overlooked. These things do happen from time to time, and for once I am glad to be able to stand at this box and say it was not the fault of the present Government, because they were not in office and had no responsibility for it. In those circumstances, I

187
hope your Lordships will accept the proposal of the Bill in full, particularly with the assurance which I have given to the noble Lord in regard to the case which he has brought before the House to-day.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I have heard with a good deal of surprise the language put forward by the Paymaster-General. See what the position is. Attention is called to the fact that in a Schedule to this Bill a provision is inserted to make a certain change in the law retrospective generally. Everybody knows that is most objectionable, because, during the interval between the date of the enactment and the previous date to which the Bill is to be made retrospective, not only this Corporation but all sorts of people may have conducted themselves on the faith of the legislation as it stood, may have incurred liabilities, and may have been advised, and possibly rightly advised, that they were in the right; and then find that by an Amendment of the law, which is none the less objectionable for being tucked away in a corner of a Schedule with no attention drawn to it—at any rate in the other place—their opportunity of discussing whether they were right or not is taken away from them.
The interpretation of the law as it stood when they acted, and all their rights, are to be concluded without their being heard; and, without the Courts of Law being allowed to pronounce upon it, a retrospective provision in the Second Schedule is to put them out of court. I should think that that requires a good deal of justification. The justification for it that is offered by the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, is an odd one. He says this is not a very important matter, and, if the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment likes to be "squared," if I may be permitted to use a word that expresses his meaning though not the words he used, he will undertake not to make the Huddersfield Corporation pay, as the law which we are now called upon to pass says they should pay. I do not know what dispensing power this Ministry thinks it has, or what the value of a promise given under those circumstances is to the Corporation of Huddersfield, but it is for the noble Lord who speaks for that Corporation to decide what course he will pursue. But I do protest against this
188
line of argument, and I do trust that such a course will never be pursued again.
It is quite clear that there was, to say the very least, an arguable case. The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, himself said that it was ambiguous, that there was a regrettable omission such as will happen, and then he takes, I dare say, just credit to himself and the Government of which he is a member for the fact that they were not in office when the previous legislation was passed. He is entitled to what legitimate satisfaction he can get out of that, but that does not touch the matter. Whether the Ministry was rightly advised or wrongly advised as to the meaning of this ambiguous provision it is not for us to decide. It ought to be decided by the competent Courts of Law, and here was an opportunity in litigation started for the purpose of deciding that very thing. Why, upon the view which the noble Lord takes upon the information that is put before him, it should be assumed that the ambiguous provision meant something which takes the Government's line and not the subject's line, and why the law should be altered retrospectively as the right way of getting over that ambiguity, I am quite at a loss to understand. It may be—I do not care whether it is so or not—that there are other people who have been acting on the view which the Corporation of Huddersfield took. If there are they will find themselves in the wrong and will be made to pay although they acted upon the construction which at the time that they did so was at any rate arguable and may have been right. I do not know what the section is and I am not going to pass any opinion upon it. I should not even if I had read it. But it is a proper matter for determination by the Court and not a matter to be dealt with in this form. There is no limit to which the mischief of this kind of legislation might be carried if once it is allowed to pass.
Your Lordships may probably have read, and if so I am sure you have read with admiration, or if you have not read I would urge you to do so, the recent luminous and convincing treatise of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, on the encroachment of the bureaucracy upon the functions of the Legislature. This seems to be a very grave case of that kind. The Ministry is

189
advised—I know not by whom, but let us suppose by the highest authority, the Law Officers of the Crown—that one view and not another is right of an existing section. Instead of taking the proper course of passing a declaratory section operative for the future to establish that meaning, if Parliament is pleased to accept it, or instead of repealing the old legislation and substituting other legislation if Parliament is pleased to do so, they introduce something the effect of which is to decide the matter in favour of the Ministry upon the suggestion of the Department itself and as far as I can make out with the very minimum notice that could possibly be given under our existing system. I hope your Lordships will declare yourselves quite unequivocally against this kind of thing being tolerated for a moment.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, this really is, I can assure your Lordships, a matter of much greater gravity than you would gather if you think it is limited to the grievance of the Huddersfield Corporation. I have been favoured with the correspondence which passed between the Huddersfield Corporation and the Ministry before this Government came into office and since. A letter in that correspondence suggests that this is a point which relates to many other people, and of course it must do. It must relate to all people who employ anybody over 65 or certainly over 70 years of age—everybody, that is, within certain grades. That means that it implicates thousands and thousands of people, and it is 'mentioned in this correspondence that this dispute between the Ministry of Labour and the Huddersfield Corporation was really a test case. Therefore it will not be sufficient even if the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, could be what the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Sumner, I think very properly called "squared." It does not settle the grievance of all these other people. If he obtained by this means a privilege for the Huddersfield Corporation, I do not think he would take the course of giving away all the case of these other people, this being a test case, simply because they settled with the people who had the correspondence with the Ministry of Labour.
The important section has not been read, and I think it would interest your
190
Lordships if I showed you precisely and very briefly how the matter stood when the question was first raised between the Huddersfield Corporation and the Ministry of Labour. By the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, employers are required to make weekly contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and by subsection (2) of Section 22—and this is the most important part—it is enacted that if any employer should fail or neglect to pay a contribution he is liable for each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10. £10 every time he does not make a contribution in respect of a person for whom he should make a contribution ! Now the employer says: "Well, I have in my employ certain people over 70 years of age, and I have come to the conclusion that I am not liable to a fine of £10 every time I do not make a contribution in respect of them." That is the conclusion I have come to. Why have I come to that conclusion? Because I have read in subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act of 1920, this:—
"Contributions shall not he payable in respect of any person who is in receipt of an old-age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1919."
This is perfectly plain and for some time it is obvious no contribution was payable in respect of them and it was not paid.
Then what happened? In 1925 another Act was passed. It is called the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. It is admitted, as I am sure the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, will agree, that that Act of 1925 contained no repeal of the section I have just read to your Lordships—no repeal in so many words. When the question came to be raised between the Ministry of Labour and the Huddersfield Corporation it was said by the Ministry of Labour that the section which I have just read is impliedly repealed. The Corporation asked: "Where is it repealed" They were told: "Oh, it is impliedly repealed. There are no words which repeal it, we cannot point you to any words which repeal it, but the whole course of legislation is such that it is impliedly repealed." That is in this correspondence, as I could show if I chose to trouble your Lordships with it. There are many letters, and long letters. This question was raised by the Ministry

191
of Labour, not the present Ministry but the former one. The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, says: "Oh, but there is a great difference between us and them." Yes, there is, and it is this, that the Ministry of Labour wrote that this was a case, as the Minister admitted, of considerable difficulty and therefore he agreed with the Huddersfield Corporation—but before I go on there is something I have omitted.
The Huddersfield Corporation, being told that this was, as they knew, a matter of considerable difficulty, took the opinion of very learned counsel, particularly able to advise upon this sort of question upon these Statutes, and they then wrote and told the Ministry of Labour: "We have, as we have told you, submitted a case to counsel. We have received his opinion." It was one of His Majesty's counsel. I have got it. I have read the case and I have read the opinion. He advised that the Huddersfield Corporation's constructions of the various sections were the absolutely right ones, and he advised them that if proceedings were taken against them for these penalties—because that was the question—the proceedings should be resisted by the Huddersfield Corporation. So the matter stood and there are letters passing between them which show that it was allowed to stand over, over the long vacation, and the letters show that what was desired by the Minister of Labour of that day, but not of this, was to have the authoritative decision of a Court of Law, an unbiased decision. And the Corporation said: "If it is against us, of course we will pay, but if it is in our favour we will not pay."
Who are these people, the Huddersfield Corporation? They are trustees for the people who pay rates out of which they pay these men. Is it to be said that they should pay what they are advised that it is not legal that they should pay? They did not take that view. They seemed to have a higher view of what is the obligation of the law than some people nowadays. They took counsel's opinion. They told the Minister at the time, and it was agreed that the Attorney-General should file an information and should by that means contend that these penalties are due to the Crown—that was the proper way—that the matter should be adjudicated upon by the Judges and
192
that, if the Attorney-General's view was upheld, the Huddersfield Corporation should pay the money.
What happened? The Minister went out of office. The Paymaster-General tells us how much better a Minister came in.
"I thank thee that I am not as other men are … even as this publican"
—the Minister of Labour in the late Government. What did they do when they came in? They put this little provision into this Bill which my noble friend Lord Fairfax desires to exclude, saying that the law was what the former Minister had suggested it was and not what the Huddersfield Corporation contended that it was. They attempted to decide by Act of Parliament that they were right in what had been admitted to be a most difficult question. They thereby took the matter away from the jurisdiction of the Courts, which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner has said, is exactly what the Lord Chief Justice has lately pointed out that these Departments are always trying to do. There was a time when it was done. When necessary this is alluded to, even in Hyde Park by people standing on tubs, who say that it was done by the Star Chamber. They do not know what the Star Chamber really did, but they say: "It withdrew things from the regular Courts, the King's Bench, and decided them in the Star Chamber."
The Star Chamber has gone. I have not the slightest doubt that the Government deeply regret its decease. So they are driven to saying: "We are right, and all the advice that you received was wrong. Those who advised us are right but, as there is still some doubt as to whether we were right, just to make sure we will ask Parliament to say that we were right, and as part of that process we shall have to ask the House of Lords to say that we were right. We very much regret that, but we have to do it, such is the wicked Constitution under which we live." And so they come here and ask your Lordships to decide that they were right in their view of a very difficult question—the difficulty was admitted—and that the Huddersfield Corporation were wrong.
But that was not all. As my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner has said, they could have done that by a declara-

193
tory Act. But they had their eye on these various accrued sums of £10 for every offence, extending back over years, and so they say: "We will not be content with a declaratory Act, but we will make the section which gives us this money retrospective and we shall have, not only from the Huddersfield Corporation but from all the other people who may have omitted to make this payment, the sum of £10 for every offence that they have committed." To get the House of Lords to pass this retrospective legislation they try to bribe the noble Lord who brings this forward by saying: "This shall not apply to your clients; they are all right. Withdraw your Amendment and we shall be quite content to get the money out of all the other people."
Why is there objection to this retrospective legislation? I wish the noble Lord opposite would remember what Mrs. Malaprop says on this subject—that our retrospections should be all to the future. So it will have to be if your Lordships agree to the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed. It did not want Chief Justice Marshall of the United States to say that retrospective legislation is to be condemned. It was said long ago. The noble Lord opposite has so much to read that I hesitate to ask him to spend more of his time upon this subject, but if he would read the second "Institute" of Lord Coke he would find that retrospective legislation is condemned by him on these lines: that if there is any question in a Statute whether the clause to be considered has retrospective operation or not, it should, if possible, be held that it has not retrospective operation, because it is unjust to make offences which were not offences when the people committed them. That is what is being done here.
The next Bill to come before your Lordships is a Bill relating to traffic on the roads. Why not put a retrospective clause into that? There are lots of people who have not committed offences yet, but who will commit many of them if that Bill passes in the form in which it is. I commend this to the noble Earl opposite—but no; I am sure that the noble Earl is much too good a lawyer and too much of a statesman to avail himself of it. But it would be quite possible to put this clause into the next Bill. I do not know what you could not do by that means. You get all manner
194
of fines and penalties from people who at present have committed no crime at all, but who would have committed crime after crime if a retrospective clause were put in. I have troubled your Lordships, I know, at too great a length, but I have done so because this, in my opinion, is not a small subject and not a question of little moment. It is a deliberate attempt by this Department of this particular Government to deprive people of what may well have been their rights, and at all events to deprive them of the chance of going into the Courts of Justice and having it determined whether these are their rights or not.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, as my noble friend the Paymaster-General cannot speak again, he has asked me to say a word upon this subject. The noble and learned Lord who has just addressed your Lordships somewhat fully upon this question complained apparently that the new Minister of Labour should say: "I am not as other men are." I do not know why he should complain that Miss Bondfield should say that. Your Lordships know what a soufflé is. A soufflé is a thing of a light character which occupies considerable space and has very little substance. There is no one in this House who is more competent than the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken to blow up a soufflé of a comparatively small matter. Really from the two speeches that we have heard we might have supposed that the Constitution was in danger. What is happening here and what is suggested here is what, after all, has been done by Parliament before. It is sometimes discovered that a mistake has been made, an oversight has taken place, under which, when all is said and done, nobody has been prejudiced or hurt, and you then do what you can to put it right. Now the suggestion in the Amendment is that this subsection, so far as it relates to the people of 65, should be repealed simpliciter and in the Bill that it should be repealed as from January 2, 1928. The object of that is an object Parliament is constantly trying to achieve. It is not to leave a period of indecision from 1928 to 1930 in which you are not sure what was or was not the law. It is admitted that this is a difficult and doubtful point, and that

195
people have been misled as to what was or was not the law. It is really a trifling matter, and if your Lordships take this view of it as a serious and constitutional question, the Government cannot do more than leave it to you.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 18 [Limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 18 and insert as a new clause:
Limitation of time for which drivers of certain, vehicles may remain continuously on duty.
.—(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—

(a) any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act;

(b) any heavy locomotive, light locomotive or motor tractor; or

(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—

(i) for any continuous period of more than five hours and one half; or

(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

(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:

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 of this section—

(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

(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
196
spent on the vehicle in any other capacity than as a passenger shall be reckoned as time spent in driving the vehicle.

(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.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we adjourned last night we were on the new Clause 18 and that has now been printed on the Order Paper. There is one slight misprint as it appears on the Order Paper. In subsection (3) in the fourth line the word should of course be "representative" of employers instead of "representatives." The question now is that Clause 18 shall be omitted in order that we may insert the new clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 18.—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this clause particularly affects the Commercial Motor Users' Association. The clause only appeared on the Order Paper for the first time yesterday afternoon and it must be quite obvious that the association and the interests chiefly affected have had absolutely no opportunity whatever of considering the new clause. They have had no opportunity to meet and formulate any considered judgment upon it. They do, however, recognise that the Minister has made an attempt to meet the objections to the detailed provisions of the clause which they put before him, but at the same time they consider that it is wrong in principle to introduce a clause dealing with the hours and conditions of labour in a Bill such as the present, which is designed to deal with safety on the road and the regulation of road traffic. Apart from this objection in principle, they would like me to make clear that they desire to reserve their right to move amend-

197
ments in detail at a later stage, possibly on the Third Reading in this House or in another place, when they have had further opportunity to consider the measure. The Minister and those in charge of the Bill might have a little more consideration for the interests affected. I do not understand what the extreme haste is with which everything connected with this Bill is being undertaken. If the Minister desires to put down Amendments of such far-reaching importance as this he should give the interests affected a good deal more time than he has seen his way to do on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I now move to insert the new clause which appears on the Paper, and in reply to the noble Earl I would say that he ought to be aware that this clause is the outcome of very prolonged conferences with all the interests concerned. I would not go too far in saying that we have satisfied all the interests concerned except those at whom this clause was originally aimed, those who have been in the habit of working people much too long hours and with great danger to the public.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, will this apply to fire engines and ambulances? There is a fear that men may have to work too long, particularly on fire engines. Perhaps the noble Earl would look into it?
EARL RUSSELL: I should have thought that no restrictions applied to fire engines, that the matter was too urgent, but I shall certainly look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Duty to give name and address and power of arrest in, certain cases]:
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, alter ("licence") insert ("for examination").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Restrictions on prosecutions under the preceding sections.
20. Where a person is prosecuted for an offence under any of the provisions of this
198
Part of this Act relating respectively to the maximum speed at which motor vehicles may be driven, to reckless or dangerous driving, and to careless driving he shall not be convicted unless either—

(a) he was warned of the intended prosecution at the time the offence was committed; or

(b) within twenty-one days of the commission of the offence a summons for the offence was served on him; or

(c) within the said twenty-one days a notice of the intended prosecution was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence,

but failure to comply with this requirement shall not be a bar to the conviction of the accused in any case where the court is satisfied that neither his name and address, nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained within the said twenty-one days, or that there is other reasonable cause for the failure and that the accused has not been prejudiced thereby.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "of the intended prosecution". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment to Clause 20 has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment in the following line. The object is to leave out the words "of the intended prosecution" and to insert after the word "committed" "that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration". The reason is one of which I have a clear appreciation because I once succeeded in getting off a client on the words "an intended prosecution." In practice the policeman who stops a motor car is not the person to decide whether or not there shall be a prosecution. He reports to his superior officer, and therefore a verbal warning by him at the time, of the intended prosecution, is of no avail. These words would meet that difficulty.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, leave out ("of the intended prosecution").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, after ("committed") insert ("that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: My Lords, if you will look at the clause you

199
will see that the police can proceed in three ways under the Bill against anybody who is accused of dangerous driving. The paragraph which I propose to leave out is the one which relates to the summons, and the reason why I propose to leave out this paragraph is that the summons, from the point of view of the person charged, is absolutely of no value whatever. It does not give the defendant any information which really would be of effective use to him in preparing his defence. I would like to submit to your Lordships that, as I have always understood it is the first principle of English justice that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, you therefore ought to give a defendant every possible chance of preparing his defence, which obviously he cannot do unless the notice of the prosecution gives him some information as to time, place and so on.
A man so charged must be able to know the exact spot where the offence is alleged to have taken place and the time of day, so that he may be able to take steps to ascertain what is the width and character of the road, and the proximity of buildings to the highway and so forth. As it is a man may be charged, after the passage of this Bill, with having proceeded through some small out-of-the-way village at a speed which somebody thought was too fast. He may be charged with reckless driving, and if so all that information is necessary to be discovered. It is recognised that after the passage of this Bill and the abolition of the speed limit there should remain no loophole by which the dangerous driver could escape punishment, but with this tightening up of the law I think it is of the greatest importance that we should guard against injustice so far as we can. To this end I suggest that there should be a definite obligation upon the police authorities to state, by notice or summons, all the essential details of the incident upon which the charge is based. I therefore beg to move my Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, lines 13 to 15, leave out paragraph (b).—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as I understand the noble Earl, he thinks that the summons will not give sufficient
200
notice. If the noble Earl will look at the Government's Amendment to paragraph (c) he will see that in the notice of an intended prosecution we propose to insert the words "specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed." Those are three things which will be in the summons. They must be in the summons, and I do not know what more the noble Earl expects to get by way of notice, unless it is a transcript of the policeman's notes, which would be unusual and irregular.
EARL HOWE: With regard to the Government's forthcoming Amendment, I am not certain what "nature" exactly means in law. Does it mean the essential particulars of time and place, or only a vague outline?
EARL RUSSELL: As I understand, it would mean what part of the road the offence was committed in, and at what time, and the summons would state whether the accused was charged with reckless driving or dangerous driving, or driving at an excessive speed, or with not stopping for a police constable. The summons has to specify the exact charge which is made.
LORD RAGLAN: It is of course important that the defendant should know the exact spot, so that he may have an opportunity, as the noble Earl has said, of measuring the road, ascertaining how far the houses are from the road, and things of that kind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to try to get as early a notice of the prosecution as possible. Obviously it is going to be very difficult for a defendant to prepare a defence and get witnesses, and with the lapse of time people's memories become dim. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to agree to "fourteen" instead of "twenty-one" days.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 16, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen.")—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should be very glad to meet the noble Earl if I could, but the police view is that fourteen

201
days is quite inadequate, and that twenty-one days is a reasonable time. I rather think it is the time in the present Act. The noble Earl will notice, too, that if he wanted to change this paragraph he would also have to change the time in paragraph (b). The Departmental Committee recommended twenty-eight days. This is a definite improvement on that, and I am afraid the noble Earl will have to be satisfied with twenty-one days.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendments are those of the Government, which I have just mentioned.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 17, after ("prosecution") insert ("specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.")—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: It is not quite clear from what the noble Earl has said what is really meant by the Amendment. Does it really mean the exact spot or only roughly the district?
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid it does not mean the exact spot as a usual rule, but I also think that the motorist will have no difficulty in obtaining the information from the police, and if he is not told the exact spot he would get an adjournment until lie was told. Ordinary justice on the part of the police always concedes that, I think, to the defendant.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 23, leave out ("neither his name and address") and insert:
("(1) (a) neither the name and address of the accused").
Page 18, line 26, after ("that") insert ("(b)").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or, (2) the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it an accused by his own conduct places additional difficulty in the way of the prosecution ascertaining his name, he must not escape by a disability.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, after ("thereby") insert ("or, (2) the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Duty to stop in case of accident.
21.—(1) If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs to any person or to any vehicle or animal in the charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and, if required so to do by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(2) If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address, or if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal not in charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and shall report the accident at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof.
(3) In this section, the expression "animal" means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat, or dog.
(4) If any person fails to comply with this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "motor.' The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved in Committee and the noble Earl when dealing with it said that he could not accept it because in any case it would not apply under this Part of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to bring in every vehicle using the road. I am, therefore, in a consequential Amendment moving to remove this clause from this portion of the Act and to include it in Part III, which deals with all vehicles on the road. There have been cases (and though they are not many still they are not altogether negligible) where horse-drawn vehicles have been concerned in accidents, and, not being damaged, have been driven rapidly away in order to avoid any subsequent difficulties in connection with the accident. I really cannot see what possible argument the Minister can have for saying that in cases of this kind they should not equally with motor vehicles he subject to the law.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think we have dealt with this point again and again in Committee both on this and on other Parts of the Bill. I do not propose to discuss it further.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "occurs," to insert "whereby damage or injury is caused." The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are consequential Amendments which will make this part of the clause read:—
"If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road, an accident occurs whereby damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle, or animal …."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, after ("occurs") insert ("whereby damage or injury is caused").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("or to any")
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("in the charge of any person").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment to omit from subsection (2) the words "or if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal not in charge of any person." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I see that Lord Russell has an Amendment immediately following mine designed with the same object. If he is advised that his Amendment is the better one I do not wish to press mine. The only point is that it seems to be rather unnecessary. You provide that if there is nobody who can ask for the name or address of the motor driver he has to report the accident at the next police station. I should have thought that covered all the cases, but apparently the advisers of my noble friend think that you ought to have a special provision for the case where the accident has occurred to a vehicle or to an animal which is not in charge of somebody. I should have thought that if it was not in charge of somebody it would be covered by the previous words and that it was rather unnecessary, but I do not want to press the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I will explain.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend apparently does not wish me to move, and he will explain on his Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal," and to insert "the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was". The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will see what the effect of this Amendment is. The words "in charge of any person" are gone—I am not sure whether the noble Viscount realised that—and if the accident occurs to a person or to a vehicle or to an animal the driver has to stop and give his name. But if the accident happens when there is no one there to whom he can give his name, then he has to report it at the police station or to a police constable as soon as possible. Does not that meet the point?
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("if") to ("not") in line 3, and insert ("the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was").—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, it meets it, but my difficulty is this. In this subsection (2) you provide that—
"If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address …."
That seems to cover every case. But you go on by my noble friend's Amendment to say that if the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was not in charge of any person then the driver shall stop, thus bringing back the case which you have already excluded in subsection (1). I should have thought that it, was unnecessary to keep those words in, but it is a question of drafting.
EARL RUSSELL: If it is a matter of drafting the noble Viscount may be right. I see his point now, and I will have it looked into.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment in subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("shall stop and").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after "station," to insert "or to a police constable." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this, I think, meets my noble friend Lord Howe.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 5, after ("station") insert ("or to a police constable").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a further Amendment in subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("possible") and insert ("reasonably practicable").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "horse," to insert "foal, colt, silly, or pony of any sex or description or age." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I think that on the face of it any reasonable person would assume that the term "horse" covered pony, you may think at first sight that this Amendment is unnecessary. The reason for putting it down is this. The word "horse," instead of being left alone to its dictionary construction, has been variously defined in Acts of Parliament. The most recent case was the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1928, where ponies and fillies and colts were treated as if they were different animals from horses. There are other Acts of Parliament also. I should like to read a passage from "Stroud's Judicial Dictionary" to show how very uncertain it is what a horse is. In a Statute of Edward I, "horse, gelding or mare," it is stated,
"included foals and fillies … but a prisoner convicted of stealing a colt, did not lose his Clergy under these Statutes, because colts are not mentioned therein eo nominee.
Quà Metropolitan Market Act, 1851, …. 'Horse' includes 'mare, ass, and mule'….
Quà the Revenue Act, 1869, …. 'Horse' means and includes a horse or pony of any sex or description or age, except a foal, colt, or filly, which shall never have been at any time used for any purpose of draught or riding.'
206
Quà Army Act, 1881, 'Horse ' includes a mule ….
Quà Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, 'Horse' shall include any other animal of any kind commonly used or employed in drawing any kind of Carriage."
That being the case, it seems to me that it is arguable that a pony is not covered by the term "horse," and I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, after ("horse") insert ("foal, colt, filly, or pony of any sex or description or age").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount's researches have been so extensive—more extensive, I am afraid, perhaps than our own—that I really do have some doubt, after what he has said, what a horse means. I had certainly understood it to mean any equine animal of any description.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: So had I.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount advised me verbally and in correspondence that one of the things he had in mind was the New Forest ponies which we know have been injured by motorists and which it is very desirable to protect. If he will allow me between now and Third Reading to consider these words again and to take advice, if the word "horse" is at all ambiguous I will certainly see what can be done.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am obliged to the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know whether anyone can tell me at once or not, but I think I should wish to be advised on the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Power to highway authorities to authorise on specified highways carriage of greater weights]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("permit") and insert ("grant a permit in respect of").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24:
Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles.
24.—(1) Where the bridge authority of any bridge over which a road passes are satisfied that the bridge is insufficient to carry weights above a certain amount they may, by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed on or near the bridge, prohibit the use of the bridge—

(a) by heavy locomotives and light locomotives, or by heavy locomotives; or

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

Provided that no weight specified in the notice shall be less than five tons.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is driven or drawn across a bridge on or near which such a notice is displayed in contravention of the notice without the consent of the bridge authority, any person who so drives or draws it or causes or permits it to be so driven or drawn shall be guilty of an offence without prejudice, however, to any civil liability of that person in the case of damage being caused to the bridge:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of passing over the bridge the total weight or weights of the motor vehicle, or the motor vehicle and trailer, as the case may be, did not exceed the weight specified in the notice.
(3) Any person or body of persons aggrieved by any restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, may appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, if he considers that the bridge is sufficient, as the case may be, to bear light locomotives or to bear heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those specified in the notice, after considering any representations made by the bridge authority, may order the restriction or prohibition to be removed or to be varied in such manner as he may direct, and the authority by whom the restriction or prohibition has been imposed shall comply within such time as may be specified in the order of the Minister with that order, and if they fail to do so the Minister may cause the notice to be removed or varied so as to comply with the order and recover the expense summarily as a civil debt from the authority by whom the notice was placed as aforesaid.
(4) The Minister may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrator or otherwise at his option, and where lie determines any such appeal as arbitrator, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Minister, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) after "insufficient" and to insert:—
"either—

(a) to carry a heavy locomotive or a locomotive, whether heavy or light, or any other motor vehicle of which the weight exceeds a certain maximum weight; or

(b) to carry a heavy locomotive or a locomotive, whether heavy or light, or any other motor vehicle of which the weight exceeds a certain maximum weight when travelling at more than a certain maximum speed,

the authority may, by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed on or near the bridge and specifying the maximum weight, or the maximum weight and the maximum speed, as the case may be, prohibit the use of the bridge, as the case may be, either by a vehicle weighing more than the specified weight or by a vehicle weighing more than the specified weight when travelling at more than the specified speed:
Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a series of Amendments, five altogether, to Clause 24 and I would explain their effect to your Lordships. The bridge authority is by them empowered not only to restrict the weight of heavy vehicles on a weak bridge but also their speed, because the speed of the vehicle on a weak bridge is a rather important consideration when there is a heavy vehicle and there are any trailers. Then, there is a new subsection which provides that where a bridge is restricted there shall not be two heavy vehicles crossing it at the same time. That is really consonant with the provision of the law now, although it is not generally observed in the case of strong bridges. It is perfectly obvious that it would be unfair to say to the owner of a bridge, "You are to restrict your bridge to vehicles not exceeding five tons," and then allow two five-ton vehicles to be put on it; therefore, we are providing against that. Then subsection (4) has been redrafted to meet the criticisms in Committee made by the Master of the Rolls and the noble Viscount, Lord Sumner. The words in the Bill as it is were supposed to be rather doubtful and my explanation of them was not apparently very successful. We have, therefore, now redrafted them in a form which I think is intelligible even to the layman. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 6, leave out from ("insufficient") to end of subsection (1) and insert the said new provision.—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL or DONOUGHMORE): The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has an Amendment to this subsection and I must put Lord Russell's Amendment so as to save that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I suppose I am right in thinking that "bridge authority" covers every authority, that is to say, that it includes the lord of the manor and any local authority whose bridge is attached to a common? I imagine that "bridge authority" includes all owners.
EARL RUSSELL: I understand "bridge authority" to cover everybody responsible for the maintenance of a bridge, and, therefore, presumably, the owner of the bridge whoever he may be.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Does the noble Earl, Lord Howe, desire to move his Amendment to subsection (1)?
EARL HOWE: Yes. I desire to ask a question on it. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can satisfy me in a word or two.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Perhaps the noble Earl will move his Amendment now.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the bridge" and insert "to the roads leading to each end of the bridge approaches so as to be visible to the driver of a motor vehicle when approaching the bridge from either direction at a reasonable distance therefrom." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will explain the purpose of my Amendment to the noble Earl. It is obvious that the difficulty is that in many counties, Lancashire particularly, notices restricting the use of certain bridges are placed only on the bridges themselves. What we ask is that the notice shall be placed some little way back for this reason. A motor lorry, perhaps with a trailer and a very heavy load, comes to a bridge and it is not until it gets there that the driver can see whether the bridge is a restricted bridge or not. Could the Minister take appropriate action under the Bill, if he is not able to accept my Amendment, so as to put the notice up
210
further back and give these drivers a chance of turning before they get to the bridge? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("the bridge") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Earl is a perfectly reasonable one. In the case of these large vehicles it may be practically impossible for them to make a turn in a road which has no turning off it when they come suddenly upon a bridge which they find they must not cross. But the Amendment in the form in which the noble Earl has placed it upon the Paper is impossible for a reason he will appreciate. It may be that the owner of the highway or the person in charge of the highway is not the same as the authority in charge of the bridge. Supposing there was a railway bridge or a canal bridge, they have no power to put up notices except on their own property. But the point will not be lost sight of. We will consider whether we can arrange either by means of an Amendment or in some other way. I am not sure if this is a matter that could be left to regulation, but we will see whether something can he done about it, because it is really a practical difficulty which involves public danger if these vehicles are trying to turn round and getting mixed up with each other on a narrow road.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in that case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Then I will put the noble Earl, Lord Russell's Amendment as it stands on the Paper, excluding the proviso so as to save Lord Lovat's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1) and insert: "Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 18 and 19, leave out from ("Provided") to "tons" and insert ("Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out "five" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to return to the charge on the subject of the limitation of the power of the highway authority to limit the weights carried over bridges and to put up notices to that effect. I am informed that many bridges, especially in sparsely populated areas, are not able to carry a burden of five tons. To give a single example. In one county where there are a thousand bridges which are only capable of carrying five tons and under, over half of them are not able to carry even five tons. To ask your Lordships to alter the law as it stands might appear at first sight to be a retrograde movement, but I can assure you that is very far from being the case. The sparsely populated parts of the country where these bridges occur are as a rule poor parts and it is obvious that it would be the gravest waste of public money, and something which county councils would be very loath to do, to put these bridges in order, and, as there is a limited amount of money to spend, probably neglect other parts of the road.
When the Bridges Act was passed last year in the House of Lords I am sure this slipped through, partly from inattention and partly from the belief which exists in almost every county that the county council have authority to put up notices saying that a bridge is not to be crossed if the weight to be taken over it is above a specified amount—three tons at the owner's risk. The county councils have taken counsel's opinion and have been informed that even if they conform with the law and put up a notice saying that the weight on a particular bridge is three tons at the owner's risk, if he goes over it and anything happens the county council is in no case absolved from an action. If some intrepid and misguided wayfarers should elect to cross such a bridge in one of the chars-a-bancs that we are preparing the roads for, and the bridge fell down and ten or twenty people were injured, it might be not only very unpleasant for those persons but equally so for the county council who would have to pay for the damage. I would, therefore, point out that you are proposing to put upon the county councils a grave risk which has no corresponding advantage.
It is true that you can declare by a subsequent clause that you will close up certain roads. County Councils would be very loath to close up roads. It would be better to put a notice on the bridge saying "This bridge is only capable of carrying three tons." It is not as if there were any danger that the county councils would close their roads in an increasing degree, or would progressively reduce them if money were allowed. As the noble Earl is aware poorer districts are even more hungry for money than the richer ones, and there is practically no part of a road which has not received a subvention in the form of improvements or otherwise, and it would be easy for the Ministry to control the action of county councils so as to see that this right of putting up three ton limitation notices was not in any way improperly used. To insist on a poor county council putting up anything up to 500 bridges, possibly at a cost of £300 or £400 each, would run into a fantastic figure, and would impose upon them an obligation which they could not discharge. If they had a 75 per cent. grant, now so easily obtained by certain districts, it would nevertheless be an intolerable burden upon the people. This is not a reactionary Amendment, but is one which will allow money to be spent in the best way to get the best advantage from the roads, and I urge that it should be accepted with the one single idea of having some sort of equality throughout the poorer districts as well as in the richer districts. I can see no argument against it.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(Lord Local.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I support the words which have fallen from my noble friend? I ask the noble Earl opposite whether this includes bridges of all kinds—bridges attached to manors for which lords of manors are responsible? There are a great many of these bridges in some parts of the country which were built for quite light road traffic—farm carts and so forth—and they are very rarely used except for that purpose. Now it is the practice for these large and heavy chars-a-bancs to go all over the country on to unfrequented roads in picturesque parts and it is possible they may wish—the public have a perfect right to use these bridges—to

213
use a bridge built only for a light farm cart. Obviously such a bridge is not strong enough to bear the weight of a heavy char-a-bancs or a motor lorry, and it might be necessary for people to have to strengthen their bridges to this very considerable extent, though possibly their bridges might never be used at all for such a purpose. But if a bridge were used the owner would be liable in the same way as my noble friend Lord Lovat has pointed out. In such cases I think very great hardship might be caused, without any particular gain coming to anybody, by insisting upon this very heavy obligatory weight.
These bridges were constructed when horse traffic was the only form of traffic, and now you have this heavy motor traffic, and it does seem to me to be a hardship to put upon private owners the necessity of strengthening their bridges in very remote parts of the country so as to make them fit to carry this considerable increase of weight. As a rule when there are a number of bridges on frequented roads and the authority has taken over the bridges en arrangement has been made by which the private owners are no longer responsible. It is in the case of these out-of-the-way bridges that a difficulty arises. There are cases where the responsibilty is shared between the private owner and the district. Then you get another complication, and you get difficulties in that way. That does not very often happen, but it might happen. It is in the case of these small areas, where there is hardly ever a heavy vehicle, that I think some relief should be granted and that they should not all be forced to strengthen their bridges to carry this very considerable weight for which they were not built.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is mistaken in what he says with regard to the strengthening of bridges for I have a very vivid recollection of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, I think on the Second Reading of the Bridges Bill, saying that owners of bridges were not liable to strengthen them for more than the traffic for which they were originally built. I think I am right in saying that, but the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong. As I had a controversy with my urban dis-
214
trict council on the point I took special notice of what the noble Marquess said.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and to appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to consent to this Amendment. Your Lordships know the difficulties of road maintenance in the Highlands; they are very serious where the road in so many places takes the place of the railway. As regards the County of Sutherland, there are a great many miles of roads which cannot carry even an occasional 5-ton vehicle. After heavy rain or severe frost, if the road is subjected to a burden of that weight, the result would be very serious, and would probably necessitate complete reconstruction in the course of a few months. Quite apart from the question of the roads and bridges you have many culverts all over the country which would also cause a great deal of trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, when the Bill was in Committee, said, I think, that a penny rate in the County of Inverness produced £800. In the County of Sutherland a penny rate produces only £300, and the road rate at the present moment is 4s. 4d. in the £1. The road authority in the County of Sutherland has 670 to 680 miles of road to maintain, and a very conservative estimate of that mileage would be about 480 to 490 miles of road which would be quite unfit to carry a burden of anything like 5 tons. I would, therefore, appeal very strongly to the noble Earl to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. He knows very well the difficulties of maintaining roads in the remoter districts. I hope your Lordships will agree that the reduction proposed to 3 tons is a very necessary one. The Amendment is one of vital importance to those living in the Highlands.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who moved the Amendment, stated his case very fairly and I have no quarrel with him. The whole of this subject is rather a difficult one. I think the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite and the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, both felt none too certain about the facts of the matter and I am quite sure I am none too certain about them myself. I would like to remind your Lordships, however, how

215
this arises. There is an idea or suggestion that this measure is imposing some new duty or doing something fresh which hurts bridge owners. Of course that is not the case. As I pointed out to your Lordships in Committee, and as is now accepted, this measure is doing nothing but what has been the law for a very long time indeed, long before motors were invented—that is, that bridge owners cannot put on restrictive notices for less than five tons. There does not seem to be any reason why advantage should be taken of this Bill, and of a penalty clause in this Bill, by a side wind, to reduce that five tons to three tons.
Let me point out to your Lordships what this clause does. This clause says that where a bridge authority wants to protect a bridge because it does not think it could carry certain weights, it may do so by certain notices, but it does not say it may protect other bridges. It says that no notice shall prescribe or prohibit a weight of less than five tons. That really is only the existing law. What the Statute does is to give a statutory right of protection to certain bridges if they put up a statutory notice. I am advised that there would be no objection at all to owners putting up notices, which would have no statutory effect, saying that the bridge is not in a condition to carry more than one or two tons, as the case may be. I should have thought myself that if in the face of that notice a heavier vehicle was driven over the bridge and caused an accident the owner of the vehicle would be liable at any rate for contributory negligence. I understood the noble Earl said that was not so.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I said that.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Earl, but I should have thought that by the ordinary law if there is a notice saying something is unsafe and a person deliberately does it, he must be held liable or at least partly responsible, for any damage. The law does not say the bridge shall carry five tons. It says you cannot put up a statutory notice limiting it to less than five tons. I do not think we should be asked to make a change in this way in the case of a law which has existed for so many years. If the law ought to be changed, I should have thought the best opportunity would
216
be on the Bridges Bill or by some Bill specially promoted by the County Councils Association or others interested.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether the five tons referred to was laid down in order to protect bridges against traction engines? Perhaps that may be the case. I do not know exactly what the weights of vehicles are.
EARL RUSSELL: I confess I have not had time to make extensive researches into this rather complicated subject, but I am told that five tons was laid down with the idea that that was the maximum possible weight for horses and carts. That was how the five tons arose historically. But I think we really ought not to make this change by a side wind here. It ought to be considered when we can have the full facts before us. I do not know what practical difficulty would arise. Apparently a practical difficulty has not arisen as yet. When the noble Lord said he did not want to restrict roads, surely it would be a very proper thing that small roads and bridges should be restricted against chars-a-bancs and heavy vehicles which ought not to be on them. The county councils have now power to make those restrictions.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (2) and to insert as a new subsection:
(3) For the purposes of this section, the weight of a vehicle means, in relation to a vehicle drawing a trailer, the aggregate of the weights of the vehicle and the trailer, and where the maximum permissible weight laden of any vehicle or trailer is indicated by marks placed thereon in accordance with any Act, order or regulation for the time being in force, the weight of the vehicle or trailer shall not he taken to be less than the weight so indicated unless the person charged with an offence under subsection (2) of this section proves to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of passing over the bridge the weight of the vehicle or trailer, as the case may be, was some less weight.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:—
(4) Where a notice has been so placed as aforesaid any person who causes or permits any motor vehicle, being either a heavy locomotive, light locomotive, motor tractor or heavy motor car to stop on the bridge or to be driven on the bridge while another such vehicle is on the, bridge shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment I mentioned earlier, to prohibit two vehicles being on the bridge at the same time.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "light locomotives or to bear heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those specified in the notice," and to insert "a vehicle of a weight greater than the weight specified in the notice, or a vehicle of a weight greater than the weight specified in the notice travelling at a speed greater than the speed so specified, as the case may be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential drafting Amendment involving the speed of the vehicle.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 38, leave out from ("bear") to ("after") in line 40 and insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to omit all words in subsection (4) after "The Minister," and to insert:—
"instead of himself determining any appeal under this section may refer the matter of the appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement between the parties to the appeal, by the Minister.
"On any such arbitration the arbitrator shall have power to make any such order as the Minister has power to make under subsection (5) of this section, and for the purposes of this section any order made by the arbitrator shall be deemed to be the order of the Minister."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the new arbitration clause and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is now in a form that can be understood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 17 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Taking motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence.
27.—(1) Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:

Provided that it shall be a defence to proceedings under this section if the accused proves that he acted in the belief that he had lawful authority, or in the belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given his consent, if he had been asked therefor.
(3) Any constable may without a warrant take into custody any person reasonably suspected by him of having committed an offence under this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "owner," in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement or a hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Every person who" and to insert:—

(a) unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith, drives, moves or enters with intent to drive or move any vehicle; or

(b) not being a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of a vehicle, unlawfully and without claim of right or licence made in good faith, causes, invites or assists any other person to drive, move or enter with intent to drive or move such vehicle; or

(c) not being a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of a vehicle, accompanies any other person who unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith, drives, moves or enters with intent to drive such vehicle;

shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that lie committed the act with which he is charged in the presence of, and with the consent of, a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of such vehicle or that he had such excuse for committing the act with which he is charged as the court shall in all the circumstances of the case consider reasonable and sufficient or, in the case of a charge under (c) hereof, that he had no knowledge that the person whom he accompanied drove, moved or entered with intent to drive or

219
move such vehicle unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith.
(2) Whether an excuse is reasonable and sufficient within the meaning of the foregoing subsection shall be a question of fact, and where a defendant charged with an offence under this section sets up as a defence that he had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing the act with which he is charged, evidence may be called by the prosecution to show, and the defendant may be cross-examined to show, that he has been previously convicted of an offence or offences under this section or of an offence or offences in relation to a vehicle under the Larceny Act, 1916.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the civil liability of any person who commits any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) of this section, whether the court holds that such person had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing such act or not.
(4) Every person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to substitute for the stolen motor car subsection proposed by the Government subsections which are on all fours with a Bill introduced in another place by a private member. The advantages of that Bill over the Government proposals can be summarised in this way. In the first place no allowance is made in the Government proposals for a really genuine mistake in taking a car. In these days of mass production it is quite possible for a man to go to a car park and make a genuine mistake about a car and not discover the mistake for a little time. It would be very undesirable that anyone should be proceeded against in such circumstances. The second advantage which this clause would have over the Government clause is that it brings in the guilty accomplice. If a car is stolen anybody in the car and not alone the driver would be liable. Then aiding and abetting is made an offence, and furthermore, heavier penalties are provided than those provided in the Government clause. There is an increase in the fine to £200 as against £100 or £50, and another very important point is that the court is authorised to order payment in
220
full or in part of the fine to the aggrieved owner of the vehicle. Then there is compulsory disqualification from holding a licence for three years and the endorsement of the licence.
The view that is taken by a number of people is that the Government proposals are not sufficiently severe to act as a positive deterrent against car-snatching or car-stealing. There is a great epidemic of it at the present time and these provisions are very urgently desired to put a stop to it. Far more danger is caused to the public by a stolen car than by any other vehicle on the road. These cars are driven without the slightest consideration for anybody. Another most important point, which we shall come to when we reach the insurance clause, is that any person who is knocked down by a stolen car will have no chance of getting any insurance as a result, if he is seriously injured. If we can do anything to stop cars being stolen we ought to do it. I venture to submit that this Amendment will be more effective than the clause proposed by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out from ("who") to the end of line 25 and insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, except one passage in the second subsection, which runs:—
"Where a defendant charged with an offence under this section sets up as a defence that he had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing the act with which he is charged, evidence may be called by the prosecution to show, and the defendant may be cross-examined to show, that he has been previously convicted of an offence or offences under this section or of an offence or offences in relation to a vehicle under the Larceny Act, 1916."
Surely it offends against every idea of British justice that a man should be cross-examined on his past. It can be brought up after he is found guilty, but certainly not before. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw those words, I shall support him if he goes to a Division.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Government, perhaps not unnaturally, prefer the form in which they have drawn this clause. The noble Earl's clause is taken from the Bill of a Private Memmer, and it contains, as will be seen from

221
a later Amendment in the noble Earl's name, a somewhat remarkable provision regarding the fines being paid to the owner. I do not object so much as the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, does to the words referring to previous offences, because I see the reason for them. The man is, in effect, setting up good character as a defence and saying that he had a reasonable ground for taking the car and is a person of good character acting under an honest mistake. The object of the cross-examination is to show that this claim was a mere pretence. I should not object to that. But it is a remarkable provision which says that the court—
"may order that the whole or any part of such fine be paid to the owner of the vehicle."
That is a remarkable provision which has, I think, no parallel, at any rate in modern legislation.
The noble Earl thinks, as I understand him, that this clause will be more effective than the Government's clause. I do not know why he thinks that. He says that the penalties are more severe. Had he moved to increase the penalties in the Government's clause, that would have been an easy method of dealing with it, but the Government clause really, I think, covers everything that is likely to happen. It says:—
"Every person who takes and driven away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable"—
That does not require him to have a felonious intent. He merely has to do it without the consent of the owner or lawful authority. And then it is a defence
"if the court … are satisfied that the accused acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority"—
I am reading the words as they will appear after the drafting Amendments that I shall propose have been inserted—
"or in the belief that the owner would … have given his consent."
The question whether he had that reasonable belief or not is a question of fact for the magistrates or the jury, as the case may be. You have to have some such provision, because there are innumerable cases of persons who quite innocently take the cars of their friends without asking permission because they know that no objection will be made.
222
Your Lordships will notice that the constable is given power to take the person into custody without a warrant, which, no doubt, would be necessary, and there is also a definition of "owner." I must say the Government prefer the clause that they have drafted. It has been very carefully considered, and indeed, had been very carefully considered by the Home Office before it was introduced into this Bill. It existed already, as your Lordships know, in the form of a Bill in another place, and I hope that your Lordships will think it wiser to adhere to the official drafting rather than to that which is taken from a Private Member's Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it seems to me that there is one difference that has not been mentioned between Lord Howe's clause and that of the Government. If a person enters a car and starts the engine and is stopped before he actually drives away, under Lord Howe's clause he would have committed an offence, but under the clause of the Government he would not.
EARL RUSSELL: If that is so, I will have it looked into. I see what the noble Lord means. The man has actually to take the car and drive away, whereas he ought to be charged when he is in the act of taking the car. I think that possibly that might be chargeable as an attempt, but I will have the point looked into. It will be quite easy to amend the clause. To that extent, however, the noble Earl's clause may be better.
EARL HOWE: I should like to ask one question regarding the people present in the car. The Government's clause does not, I think, deal with anybody actually found in the stolen car when it is stopped. My clause endeavours to deal with anybody who is found in the car, and not only with the driver.
EARL RUSSELL: It is not necessary that it should deal with anybody in the car because, if they have committed an offence, that is to say if they are parties to the offence, then, as the noble Earl knows, in a case of misdemeanour they can be charged as principals. It is merely a question of fact whether they are parties to the offence or not. If it is merely a girl who has been picked up by

223
the driver and does not know whether the car is stolen or not, there is no reason why she should be charged with this serious offence.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have four drafting Amendments at this point.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out from ("that") to ("acted") in line 21 and insert ("if on summary proceedings under this section the court, or on proceedings under this section on indictment the jury, are satisfied that the accused")
Page 23, line 22, after the first ("the") insert ("reasonable")
Page 23, line 25, after ("therefor") insert ("the accused shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence")
Page 23, line 32, after ("any") insert ("police").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection is unnecessary in view of the definition in Clause 101 as it is proposed to amend that clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 35, leave out subsection (4).—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Restrictions on persons being towed by getting on to or tampering with motor vehicles]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, leave out ("enters") and insert ("gets on to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulations]:
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after paragraph (g), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"The provision of appliances whereby the speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling may be automatically shown so as to be clearly visible to police officers or others on the road, and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test or inspect whether on a road or elsewhere any such appliances."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I put down in Committee but, owing to a public engagement, I was not here to move it. I believe my noble friend Lord Onslow
224
was good enough just to place it before the Committee without, I think, any argument on the point. The point really is this. I ask your Lordships' attention to it as a serious matter. The Government propose to retain the speed limit in a great number of cases. Practically they are exempting only the private car. Well, we know quite well that the great argument against the speed limit, and the one that has always pressed very strongly on me, is not so much that it does not contribute in some degree to public safety, but that it is so generally broken and disregarded that it brings contempt upon the law and has very little effect. What kind of security have you that the speed limits in the Schedule will be more generally regarded than the speed limits which exist at the present time? I can think of none. It is quite true that possibly, in the very low speed limits dealing with heavy motor cars, the vehicles are probably not constructed to go very much faster than they do and it may be that there will be some security there, but in the case of chars-a-bancs, public service vehicles and the lighter kinds of goods vehicle, they will all disobey the rule just as they do now. Why should they not? They have found that, by continually disobeying the rule, they have induced Parliament to abolish it in the case of one kind of motor car. They will say: "Let us go on disobeying it and we will have it removed in the case of the other motor cars."
I respectfully suggest you cannot leave the Bill exactly like that. If you are going to keep the speed limits at all you ought to do something to make it easier to enforce the law. Therefore I suggest in this Amendment that you should give power to the Ministry to provide by regulation for attaching at the back of a motor vehicle a speedometer of such a size as to be visible from the road. I will come to the details of the speedometer in a moment. It is not only a case of the speed limit. My noble friend Earl Russell has said with great truth that he thinks the great thing is to stop dangerous driving. He has said more than once in this House that he looked to a condition of affairs when people will be stopped from dangerous driving and liable to prosecution even though an accident has not occurred. He made a very strong case on that. Now what constitutes dangerous driving in the

225
great majority of cases? It is driving at an excessive speed in view of the circumstances of the case. I do not say that is the only possible form of dangerous driving, but it is the commonest. What happens when the policeman, the bystander or whoever it is, comes into court? He says: "This car came round the corner at a tremendous speed on the wrong side of the road." The owner goes into the box and says: "Not at all. I was driving at the most moderate speed. I can assure you that I am a very careful driver." I have never met a motorist who did not say he was a very careful driver and thoroughly disapproved of the type of motorist that takes unnecessary risks. I never met a motorist who did not say that except, possibly, a very few youthful and perhaps unnecessarily truthful individuals. He says: "I was driving with the utmost care. A mere snail's pace." Therefore you have a complete divergence of opinion and no means by which the court can settle which was right and which was wrong. That is a very serious thing and it makes a very serious blot on our legislation about dangerous driving.
It ought not to pass the wit of man to construct such a speedometer as I have suggested—a speedometer not of enormous size but, say, a foot across, or possibly not as much. It would not be a speedometer such as we are all familiar with on the dashboard of a car showing in great detail whether you are going at 25 or 26 miles an hour. You want a much rougher machine than that, which would indicate whether you are going between 30 and 40, between 40 and 50, or between 50 and 60 miles an hour. That can be done with the greatest ease. The only argument which the noble Earl urged on the last occasion was the impossibility of providing such a speedometer which could be visible. Since I have been sitting in your Lordships' House I have ventured to make a very rough diagram on the back of the Amendment paper of the kind of thing I have in view and here it is. It would only be for the case of a car of which the limit was 30 miles an hour. You would have 30 there, 40 there, 50 there, and 60 there, and a hand which would move round. Any policeman who was familiar with the make of these things would know directly he saw the hand that the car was travelling at between 30 and 40 miles an hour, or
226
between 40 and 50, or between 50 and 60 miles an hour as the case might be. Of course they would obviously be standardised. That is the object of giving the power to make regulations to the Minister. I do not suggest that this is the best or the only plan. It is a very rough illustration of the kind of thing that is in my mind. I am quite sure it could be very much improved and that a thing of that size, or a little bigger than that, would be perfectly visible, in daylight at any rate, and of course it would be lighted up at night. It would be a very important protection in this matter.
I cannot think it would be a very great hardship to require such a thing as that to be attached to motor cars and I ask the Government to consider very carefully whether some such power is not a desirable one to take. If they find in practice it is not possible to do it, then they need not exercise their power. Surely, there is a very serious need for doing something if we can find a means of doing it. It is a scandal that we should retain the speed limit in a great number of cases when the whole case for abolishing it in the one case in which we are going to abolish is that it cannot be enforced. If you are going to retain it without any provision to facilitate its enforcement where you do retain it, I think you are going to pass legislation which stands condemned on the face of it. I press still more strongly the desirability of having some means to ascertain the pace at which any car is going when we are all agreed that speed must enter very largely into the question whether the offence of dangerous driving has or has not been committed. I am very sorry to have detained your Lordships so long, but this is a matter to which I attach the greatest importance and I trust that it will have very serious consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, after ("gear") insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has given us an interesting account and an interesting illustration of the sort of instrument he has in mind. I think that, as I suggested in the Committee stage, it would be rather an amusing and interesting instrument to have

227
upon the roads. One's judgment of the speed at which a car is going on the road is an extremely variable one. One's estimate, even that of the most experienced person, is often incorrect, and it would be interesting to have a large speedometer telling you exactly at what speed other motor vehicles on the road were going. I do not know, even supposing it was desirable to do this, that the noble Viscount has considered the practical details. To begin with, I think the instrument would have to be twice the size of the diagram he held up to your Lordships. It has to be seen in all conditions of daylight, in all the circumstances of passing traffic, and for a very short time. It must be something you would have to observe quickly and I think it would have to be twice the size. I was wondering while he was speaking where in regard to a private ear it could be conveniently fitted. It would not have to be on one side only, it must be visible on both sides.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I contemplated its being on the back near where you put the number of the car.
EARL RUSSELL: It would not be as much use on the back as on the front, because if the car passed, by the time you saw the back it would have slowed up a good deal.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I only take what is possible.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not, sure that such an instrument is impossible, but I am quite sure it would be very expensive to fit, and I am quite sure of something much more important—namely, that it would be very easy to tamper with it, and undoubtedly, in the case of the young scorching driver of a private car capable of almost any enormity, it would be tampered with without doubt. It might also be tampered with in the case of commercial vehicles. Moreover, I am not certain what purpose it would serve if it worked all right. The Amendment says—
"speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling may be automatically shown so as to be clearly visible to police officers or others on the road."
What is that speed to show them when they look at it? Is it to show them that it is such a, speed as would bring the car
228
under the dangerous driving provisions? I suppose that is the underlying idea.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I explained carefully that it had two objects. Where the vehicle was one subject to a speed limit it would show whether that limit was being exceeded. Where the car was not subject to a speed limit, but was guilty of driving in the opinion of the police officer, at a speed which constituted dangerous driving, it would enable him to tell the court precisely at what speed the vehicle was going, and that would give them a much better chance of judging whether it was excessive speed or not.
EARL RUSSELL: It is perfectly true that with a, fixed speed limit it would enable the constable to see whether that limit was being exceeded, but it would leave a prosecution rather difficult even then, because as a matter of law I think a police officer would also have to prove that the speedometer was recording correctly. If the speedometer recorded forty miles an hour, the prosecution would still have to prove that the car was going at forty miles an hour. There would, I am sure, be some technical legal difficulties of that kind. Really I do not think that this proposal is going to serve a purpose sufficiently useful to justify its application. The instrument would necessarily cost a good deal, it would be liable to be tampered with, and I am not quite sure what actual useful purpose it would serve. I think I am right in saying, if it is any satisfaction to the noble Viscount, that under the regulations which are contemplated the Minister would have power to impose this obligation upon motor cars at any time it was thought right and proper; but as the noble Viscount has proposed it for something like five times in this House and in the Select Committee—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Earl is guilty of exaggeration. I have never proposed it in this House, except through the medium of Lord Onslow on the Committee stage. I asked in the Committee upstairs whether it was possible, and I was told, although they were hostile to every proposal which I made, that it was a possible thing to do.
EARL RUSSELL: It was suggested upstairs, but not moved as an Amendment.

229
I thought it was also in the noble Viscount's Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, it was not.
EARL RUSSELL: I suggest to the noble Viscount, because he thinks it is really workable and useful, that he should enquire among makers of these instruments and motor manufacturers as to the kind of instrument which could be produced and used, and as to whether it is a practical proposition. He can hardly expect us to accept it now, but if at any time he was able to convince the Minister, the Minister would be able to do it by regulation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Why should not the Minister make inquiries?
EARL RUSSELL: think the Minister would not make inquiries for the reason I have mentioned, that he is not of the opinion that this would serve any useful purpose.
EARL HOWE: There is just one other point affected by this proposal, to which allusion has not been made. It is the case of foreign-owned cars. A large number of foreign-owned cars come to this country, and English-owned cars go abroad. Most of the regulations are international, and great efforts are made to bring them into line. If this regulation only applied to British cars—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course it would apply to every car on British roads.
EARL HOWE: Then it would have the effect of keeping foreign-owned cars out of this country.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Why not?
LORD DANESFORT: I would like to point out that the regulation is not to be compulsory upon the Minister but he is to apply it in his discretion if he thinks right. The clause says that "the Minister may make regulations." If this new paragraph were inserted it would not be compulsory on the Minister, if he found it impossible, but if he found it to be possible, then the paragraph would enable him to make a regulation.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Supposing these regulations are not observed by users of motor cars, under this actual clause there is no penalty.
EARL RUSSELL: There is a general penalty for disobeying the regulations.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there are a number of further Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 8, leave out ("the methods to be used and")
Page 25, line 13, leave out ("the intended movement") and insert ("any intended change of speed or direction")
Page 25, line 13, after ("vehicle") insert ("and the method of using any such appliance")
Page 25, line 14, leave out ("such appliances") and insert ("they")
Page 25, line 36, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with regard to subsection (2) I take it that the noble Earl is going to put in this provision later.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, that is being put in a general clause at the end.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think you would probably find this a convenient time to adjourn.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clause 30 [General law relating to carriages to apply to motor vehicles]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, after ("vehicle") insert ("or trailer.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Provisions as to Northern Ireland drivers' licences.
31.—(1) If the Minister certifies that satisfactory provision is made by the law of Northern Ireland for the granting of licences to drive motor vehicles, it shall be lawful for the holder of such a licence, unless he is disqualified under this Act for holding or obtaining a licence to drive and be employed in driving a motor vehicle in

231
Great Britain, notwithstanding that he is not the holder of a licence under this Part of this Act:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a motor vehicle" and, after "Britain," to insert "a motor vehicle of any class or description which he is authorised by that licence to drive." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of these Amendments is to ensure that if in Northern Ireland the holder of a licence can only drive a particular class of vehicle a similar restriction can apply in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("a motor vehicle")
Page 26, line 11, after ("Britain") insert ("a motor vehicle of any class or description which he is authorised by that licence to drive").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application to Scotland]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert—
"(e) Section twenty shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to a complaint for the reference to a summons."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment for the purposes of Scottish law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 27, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34:
Obligation on owners of motor vehicles to hold insurance policies or other security against third-party risks.
34.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle while being so used such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding any enactment prescribing a time within which proceedings may be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought either within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor
232
that the offence had been committed, whichever period is the longer.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "vehicle while being so used" and insert "user of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment for the purpose of removing an obscurity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("vehicle while being so used") and insert ("user of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), 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:—

"(a) within a period of six months from the date of the commission of the alleged offence; or

(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, this Amendment is for the purpose of providing what I mentioned to your Lordships—a period of six months, or a period of a year if the prosecutor did not learn of the offence at once. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, leave out from ("brought") in line 14 to ("whichever") in line 18 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert:—
"(5) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of any county, borough (including a metropolitan borough), urban district or rural district and the common council of the City of London."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, at end insert the said now subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Requirements in respect of policies.
35.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which£
(b) insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road:
Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover—

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

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

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "authorised insurer" means an assurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by this Act, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in ally enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall, subject to any conditions contained in the policy, be liable to indemnify the persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability against which they are insured by the policy.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "liability," to insert "by way of compensation." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment for this reason. As the clause stands the words "any liability" are a little too wide. What is really intended, I take it, is any Common Law liability as to negligence in driving a motor which causes death or bodily injury to a person. That is what is meant to be insured against. As the words stand might they not include certain liabilities which are not really intended to be insured against? Let me give the noble Earl one illustration. Supposing A and B are in partnership, and A is under contractual liability to pay a sum of, say, £2,000 in the case of B's
234
death. A takes B out for a drive in his car, and B is killed. A will have to be insured against Common Law liability by way of compensation for the death of B, but it was never intended that in such case A should be insured against liability to B, his partner, a contractual liability for £2,000 which he had to pay in case of death.
There are many other illustrations that could be given, but the noble Earl will see that it is at any rate one of many cases where the liability is not intended to be covered, but it might be covered by the words that are used, "any liability." Therefore I propose words which I think will meet the case—after "liability" to insert "by way of compensation." Then it, will read—
"in respect of any liability by way of compensation which might be incurred by him or them in respect of the death or bodily injury of the person."
I think the noble Earl will see it is necessary to limit it in some way, and I think those words will limit it in a proper way.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, after ("liability") insert ("by way of compensation").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong. If he will read Clause 35 together with Clause 34 he will find that it must relate to an injury caused by the vehicle. I do not see that it would possibly cover such a case as he suggested, and I am glad to have an idea of what the noble Lord had in mind in his Amendment, because I thought he had in mind some sort of criminal liability. Naturally it would not cover that in any event.
LORD DANESFORT: No, contractual liability.
EARL RUSSELL: I think that case would not arise. The usual words in a third-party policy are something like these: "all sums which the assured shall be liable to pay by way of compensation for bodily injury." I do not know that putting these words in really makes it any better or any worse, but if the noble Lord thinks it an improvement I could accept them for the time being, and consider them.
LORD DANESFORT: These are the usual words, "by way of compensation," and those are the words I suggest. If

235
the noble Earl will kindly accept them now and later on finds they are unsuitable he can strike them out and put in proper words.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask the noble Lord if he thinks "by way of compensation" is quite the same as "by way of damages"? What you recover in your action are damages for your injury.
LORD DANESFORT: I could accept "by way of damages" if the noble Earl thinks those words are better.
EARL RUSSELL: I should think it better not to put in either word unless the noble Lord presses it.
LORD DANESFORT: I should be glad to put in some words, and the noble Ear] might strike them out later if necessary. The noble Earl suggests "by way of damages" is better than "by way of compensation," and I will put those words in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, after ("liability") insert ("by way of damages").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (i) of the proviso to paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "death," to insert "arising out of and ". The noble Lord said: Those are the usual words.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 42, after ("death") insert ("arising out of and").—(Lord Dunesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the next Amendment deals with the same question.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, after ("person") insert ("arising out of and").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out paragraph (ii) of the proviso to subsection (1) (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move to leave out this paragraph because I really do not understand it. Perhaps the noble Earl will take
236
the opportunity of explaining what it means. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see the proviso begins—
"Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover"—
And later come these words, which I really do not understand—
"except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise."
While I am sure that the noble Earl, if it fell to his lot to construe these words judicially, would be able to do it, I confess I have the least possibility of doing it myself. Perhaps if the noble Earl would explain it may turn out that the clause is all right.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out paragraph (ii).—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the clause is perhaps a little difficult to read, but the object is to avoid covering a voluntary passenger who rides in a car with a negligent driver who turns out to be insolvent. Your Lordships will notice that the paragraph first refers to a case where passengers are being carried "for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment." That, I suppose, would refer to workmen going to or returning from work or something of that sort, but it excludes persons who are "being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise." It is intended to exclude voluntary passengers.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation, but may I suggest to him that before Third Reading he might consider whether words could not be employed which would make it clear that these are voluntary passengers? The words in the paragraph now are, "persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle." That would appear to include all persons, and not merely persons, as the noble Earl says, who are being voluntarily carried. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider the point.
EARL RUSSELL: I will certainly look into it.
LORD DANESFORT: In that case I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1), after the words "persons being carried in or" to insert "upon or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of inserting these words is to cover pillion riders who cannot he said to be "in" a vehicle.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, after the first ("or") insert ("upon or") —(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
( ) Where any payment is made by an authorised insurer under a policy issued under this Part of this Act in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road and the person who has so died or been bodily injured has to the knowledge of the authorised insurer received treatment in a hospital in respect of the fatal or other bodily injury so arising, there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment to an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each person so treated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the particular sufferers whom this Amendment should relieve are the hospitals near the great trunk roads in which beds are filled with people injured in motor accidents to the exclusion of local patients for whom the hospitals were provided. In the great majority of cases no return of expenses has been made to those hospitals. This Amendment was brought forward in Committee and met with such strong support from your Lordships that it was withdrawn only on condition that it should be dealt with on Report.
In the interval we were invited to visit the Ministry, and we took with us an Amendment which had been approved by the Voluntary Hospitals Committee of King Edward's Hospital Fund. After consultation we thought the noble Earl would have been able to move the Amendment, but we learned last Friday that he felt that he was unable to do so. I
238
should like to point out to him—he will probably have noted it—that we have met one of his principal objections. We have removed the words "deducted from" and put in the words "also be paid." That, I think, removes one of his main objections. I find that my own motor policy contains a clause which states that I am insured against medical expenses up to 25 guineas, covering passengers in the car—that is, covering a risk that may not be a legal one. I can barely imagine that motorists would object to paying an extra shilling or two in order to cover this risk to the hospitals of the expense of attending to the injured. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Luke.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. As I have said before, it will be a very great disappointment to hospitals all over the country if they are unable to do so. When the Amendment was discussed before, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill expressed his sympathy with this object, and we were satisfied with that expression, but when he was removed from the audience to which he spoke with such force and came to the frigid and legal atmosphere of Whitehall Gardens I gather that more difficulties arose. We tried, in the interview that we had with him, to meet those difficulties, and sitting here, as I have all through the discussion of this Bill, I have been impressed by the able and, if I may say so without impertinence, the charming way in which the noble Earl meets all the cross-word puzzles put from this side. He seems always to find the right word at the right moment to solve every puzzle. May I say that I am convinced that you have only to put a difficulty to the noble Earl and he will surmount it at once. If I had to compel him to do something, I should say that it could not he done, for I am quite sure that the noble Earl would somehow do it at once. Accordingly I have great hopes that he will get over any of the difficulties that have been suggested to him outside this House, because, when he was in this House, he was so deeply in sympathy with this subsection, and his acceptance of it, if I may say so, is expected of him through the whole country.

239
I hope that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, moved is quite clear to the House. The duty of the insurance company will be first to pay the damages to insured persons for loss of limb, of capacity for carrying on business and so on—damages which, by the way, have been enormously decreased by the fact that a person has been treated in the hospital—and, after satisfying those damages, to pay a small sum up to a maximum of £25 for the treatment of what may be a very serious case involving the hospital in a great deal of expense. I am quite sure that your Lordships will realise that the insurance companies have to fix their premiums to cover the cast of medical expenses, and it seems unreasonable that, because the expenses are incurred in a hospital that makes no charge, they should escape that part of the reasonable payment for the recovery of the patient.
The hospitals—I wish to emphasise this, for I know that the noble Earl will take advantage of me—do not want to make any legal charge against any of their patients. We do not want to be put in that position. Many of us would think much less of the Good Samaritan if he had sent in a bill for the wine and oil supplied by him and the money paid for the maintenance of the patient, and we do want to carry on that ideal in the management of the hospitals. Therefore, we do not want to make any legal charge against any patients treated in the hospitals. We quite realise the legal difficulties, but we trust to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to get over them. We quite realise that an insurance company is only liable to the holder of a policy to cover his legal liability and that there is no legal liability to a hospital. It is to get over that anomaly that this Amendment has been moved. The result of this Bill will be that the insurance companies will have a very large sum paid to them every year because every driver is obliged to be insured. It does not seem unreasonable that they should be compelled to arrange the premium of those payments to cover the expenses where the patient is treated in a hospital, and that is the object of this Amendment which I hope will get the support of the House.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the debate if
240
your Lordships were to take the course which I am about to suggest. Your Lordships know that at the moment I am only a temporary and fugitive representative of the Ministry of Transport, but since yesterday we have had the real Simon Pure on this Bench. It would, I think, be convenient if my noble colleague were to state at this stage the objections and difficulties we have about this clause in order that subsequent speakers might address themselves to them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I am very reluctant to break my silence so soon after coming to your Lordships' House and I feel it is quite unnecessary for me to take any part in the proceedings on this Bill considering the great ability my noble friend has shown in conducting it through this House. Moreover, I have only been at my office for rather more than six weeks so that I may seem ill qualified to take any part. I am further reluctant because resisting this Amendment may seem to denote an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Government towards what seems a really clear case for the hospitals which has been so ably put by the noble Lords who have spoken. We are sympathetic to the underlying principle, and we only wish that it could be made practicable.
There is rather a temptation throughout this very far-reaching measure to bring in irrelevant points. The whole question of traffic nowadays comprehends such a vast number of subjects that it is very likely that from time to time we may go beyond the precise scope of the Bill. Even this afternoon we had some very convincing speeches on the subject of the burdens to be placed on bridges. I was very much impressed by them but as my noble friend pointed out, we cannot stretch this Bill to comprehend too many subjects, and the question of bridges must be dealt with separately. So we feel that we cannot make the Road Traffic Bill into a Bill for paying back to the hospitals the sums which they are being really deprived of by the number of accident cases which are brought to them. We feel that it is outside the scope of the Bill. It is true, as Lord Knutsford said, that when he and Lord Luke came to the Ministry of Transport

241
my noble friend was very sympathetic to the view they put forward. Who would not be? But when we came to face the cold facts, and to find out how this could be brought within the four corners of a Bill which deals with road traffic, we felt that it would be impossible for us to accept the Amendment. It really involves an entirely new principle in insurance, and it is rather difficult to bring that into a subject to which it is not quite relevant. It must necessarily, of course, increase the premiums, and that would be a consideration.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: It would increase them very little.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: The point mentioned by Lord Knutsford is one which makes the matter even more difficult, for if the hospitals are reluctant to put forward any legal claim on a patient, how can the Government place the liability on the insurance companies in an Act of Parliament? To draft a clause which would do that would be almost impossible, and to make the Government of the day responsible for this new principle is, I think, asking too much. As I have said, I am very reluctant to resist this Amendment because we realise the heavy work which falls on the hospitals, and also the admirable work which they do. We should very much like to assist them in every possible way, but we feel that this is not the place to do it, and this Amendment must be resisted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sure you will welcome the speech of the noble Lord in one way, in that it is his first speech in this House, but we regret it in another way, because he was not able to give a more sympathetic welcome to what I think I may say is an Amendment the principle of which has received approval throughout the House and throughout the country. Still, although the noble Lord was unable to accept the Amendment, yet I think he regarded the principle of it, as did Lord Russell, with great sympathy, and therefore I would venture to appeal to your Lordships to carry on with your intention, and see whether, even if the particular form of words is not to be approved, it is yet possible on the Third Reading that something satisfactory to all sides may be introduced. The noble Lord said that it was entirely a new point
242
in the Bill, and if I understood him aright he seemed to think that this particular principle of insurance for hospitals was not quite germane to the present Bill. I venture to point out to your Lordships, however, that the clause with which we are now dealing is entitled "Requirements in respect of policies" and that it deals with the question of insurance. Therefore I would suggest that it is possible to place this Amendment in this clause, and that the question of the payment of hospitals is germane to this Bill.
It is said that this is a new principle in insurance. Perhaps it is, but are we not always introducing new principles in legislation I After all, this Bill is full of new principles. We are abolishing the speed limit: that is a new principle. We are adopting more stringent measures against dangerous driving: this is not a new principle, but it is a very considerable extension of an old one. And therefore I think that is scarcely a reason for not dealing in this Bill with a question which is admitted on all sides to be one of very considerable urgency. I do really hope that there will be some method found of accepting the principle of this Amendment. It is a matter which was strongly recommended by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, and a recommendation on these lines was set forth in our Report, which was issued in 1925. If there were any further argument necessary to prove the very grave difficulty and disability under which hospitals stand in regard to this question, I would venture to cite briefly the case as regards the hospital in which I am more particularly interested, and of which I happen to be President—namely, the Royal Surrey County Hospital. I got some figures from the secretary the other day, which are both interesting and instructive.
I do not know whether your Lordships who motor on the Portsmouth Road know the hospital; I trust that you have not had occasion to utilise it. It is particularly favourably—or perhaps I should say unfavourably—situated for the reception of road accident cases. The number of these in 1927 was 156, in 1928 it was 170, in 1929 it was 153; the average number of days in hospital of these road accident cases was thirty-four; and there was a constant occupation during that time of

243
fifteen beds for road accident cases. As most of these were men, and we have only seventy beds for men, a very high proportion of the accommodation is taken up by this class of case. That being so, a very heavy expenditure is entailed on hospitals like ours in respect to these road accident cases. This clause will enable the insurer to include among payments in respect to insurance some of the costs of hospital treatment. I should like to say quite frankly that the hospitals make no complaint whatever of having to take these cases; it is their duty to take them. But where compensation is paid it seems not unfair that part of that compensation should go to the hospitals which are put to a very heavy expense by these cases. I therefore urge most strongly on the Government that they should endeavour to co-operate with us in finding some way out of this difficulty, the existence of which nobody denies.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I cannot believe that the last word has been said by the Government on this subject. I am connected with a large voluntary institution—not a hospital, but a great voluntary institution which is very similar in character to a hospital, which exists for the purpose of saving life and nothing else, and which is in that capacity performing an entirely indispensable national service. If by any chance the strain upon the hospitals becomes too great, and results in some of them having to put up the shutters, what will be the attitude of the Government then? It is a very serious problem with which we may be faced. The number of motor cars in this country is not going to decrease and there is not one word in this Bill, as it stands, that will increase public safety on the roads, In fact, I think it will decrease public safety on the roads. Accidents will tend, I think, to increase rather than to decrease in proportion. I notice that this statement causes amusement to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I was only amused to find the noble Earl joining forces with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil.
EARL HOWE: It may be that those of us who, like the noble Earl himself, have a little first-hand acquaintance with these problems realise the seriousness of
244
them. I find no cause for anything except sincere anxiety on behalf of the hospitals. They are performing an entirely national service, and if they break under the strain that service will have to be performed by the State. As one who is a believer in private enterprise and endeavour, particularly in such matters as hospitals, I hope that the Government will be able to give yet further consideration to a problem which I regard as of first-class importance.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, unless the Government can assist the House in finding some practical solution of this very urgent question I say with confidence that there will be deep and widespread disappointment and dissatisfaction throughout the country. The voluntary hospitals have done magnificent work for years. Their finances were greatly strained even before the advent of motor cars. They carry on business on the voluntary principle and intend to continue on that principle. Since the advent of motor cars their finances have been more strained than ever. It is common knowledge that on every highway and big road going out of London to the country where there is a hospital there are invariably a number of cases taken into it owing to motor accidents. Those cases have to be treated. They are treated and gladly treated, but at very great cost, and with great strain on the finances of the hospital. By this Bill you are making provision for insuring third parties against motor risks.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Only third-party risks.
LORD DANESFORT: Only third parties. When you are taking a step of that sort you are really bound to do what you can to help the hospitals out of the great difficulties with which they are faced. I was deeply disappointed, I confess, by the utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. His first suggestion was that this provision was not germane to the Bill. I cannot imagine anything more germane. Here is a clause for the purpose of providing compensation to third persons in case of death or accident owing to motors. Why it should not be germane to say that compensation should be provided to the hospitals for the services they render in consequence of these motor accidents I cannot imagine.

245
I do not like to use any strong language, but I think it is amazing.
The noble Lord suggests that some other occasion might wise, goodness knows when or where, on which it would be possible to introduce a proper provision for paying the hospitals. Surely, the time is now, when we have the whole subject of motor traffic and compensation in respect of it before us. Now is the time to do it if it can possibly be done. The noble Lord went on to give some special reasons why this should not be done in the present Bill. He said that this is a new principle. Yes, but is not the principle of compulsory insurance itself a new principle? It is a principle which has never been brought forward in any previous Bill. The most appropriate principle, it seems to me, to bring in with such a principle as compulsory insurance is the principle of compensating the hospitals for the services they render. It seems to me to rest on the same principle.
Then the noble Lord says that there will be an increase of premiums. I think that increase would be exceedingly small and, if an increase took place, surely you could not have a better subject for an increase? The value you would get for that increased premium would be immense all over the country in the services rendered by the hospitals themselves, to the neighbourhoods where those hospitals are situate, and to the people who are served by those hospitals in those neighbourhoods. Finally, the noble Lord said why should you provide anything to pay the hospitals when there is no legal liability on the part of the insured person to pay the hospital? Why should that be a difficulty? I cannot see anything in reason or in law why such an expense should not be provided against. It is quite true that as a rule a man insures against legal liability, but is there anything in law or in the constitution of this country which would prevent Parliament from saying: "Here you are having a compulsory insurance. You must insure not only against those liabilities for which you are Legally liable, but you must insure to make good the expenses to which the hospitals are put in consequence of those accidents"? There is nothing in the constitution of Parliament that I know of, or in the English law which would prevent such provision.
246
I beg of the Government, if they cannot accept this Amendment in the exact form in which it has been brought forward, to do their best to carry out what is the undoubted wish of the vast majority of the people of this country to help the hospitals, and to help the people who are taken into those hospitals to be cured. The noble Earl has given ample proof, not merely of skilful conduct of affairs in this Bill, but of great legal knowledge and adaptability, and I am sure he and his colleagues, if they consult together, can get over any Departmental reluctance there may be to introduce a new and beneficial principle. If they get over this difficulty, they will deserve our gratitude. If they do not, I am afraid they will inflict severe disappointment.
LORD ARMSTRONG: My Lords, coming from the North, I should like to bear out what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said with reference to the South. I am Chairman of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-on-Tyne, which has 550 beds. We have to reserve a ward of thirty beds entirely for motor accidents, and the cost to the infirmary we estimate at £5,000 a year. I have read several reports of other hospitals to the regional committee of the British Hospitals Association of which I am Chairman emphasising the same grievance, and unless something can be done I feel there will be very great disappointment for the voluntary hospitals of this country.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, may I press upon the Government and the noble Earl in charge of this Bill to give consideration to this Amendment. It is not really a very exceptional or a very wide extension of the insurance policy already in the Bill. At present a man is liable for any accident which he causes. He is liable for the cost of medical attendance. If the person to whom the accident has happened is taken to a private doctor or a private hospital or, I believe, to a Poor Law infirmary, there can be no doubt that the insurance company will allow all the expense to which the person causing the accident is put in consequence of that accident. The only case—and that I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, is a doubtful one—where the liability may

247
not exist, is in the case of a voluntary hospital. As your Lordships will remember, my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin on the Committee stage put me right on a point of law when I said I believed voluntary hospitals had no legal claim. He said he believed they had a legal claim. Voluntary hospitals are very unwilling to exercise that legal claim, and in fact decline to do so. Surely it is a very small extension of the principle which is admitted in the case of every other medical service, to extend it to cover what is at least a moral and quite possibly a legal obligation upon a person causing an accident. Every decent person who causes an accident for which he is responsible would consider it almost a matter of conscience to pay the expense the hospital is put to.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said it would increase insurance premiums. But would it seriously increase premiums? A third-party insurance covers legal liability for medical attendance and the only extra burden the insurance companies would be called upon to pay would be in the case of a patient taken to a voluntary hospital. They already have to pay if he is taken to a private doctor or to a Poor Law infirmary. Surely the amount of extra premium to be paid in respect of motor accidents where the driver is responsible—and those are the only cases covered by this Amendment—would be very small. It is only in cases where the driver is responsible, and only in cases where the victim is taken to a voluntary hospital, that anything additional would fall upon insurance companies for which they are not at present liable under the third-party insurance policies they issue. We all know what are the rates for third-party insurance and to suggest that this Amendment should be resisted because it would mean increasing the premiums which motorists have to pay is really, I submit, to make a very large mountain out of a very small molehill. The extra cost for covering any liability to voluntary hospitals would be, I think, a very small sum indeed.
Now may I for a moment deal with a point, which is not covered by this Amendment, but is a very serious question, and that is the case of persons injured by their own driving, such, for instance, as a motor cyclist who rides furiously, runs into a lorry and is carried
248
in an ambulance to hospital. It is possibly not desirable to give hospitals the right to claim in such cases except against a voluntary fund, but I would suggest as a matter for consideration whether there is not something to be said for inviting motorists' associations to agree that there should be some small extra amount added to the cost of a driving licence, which sum should be administered by the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Health for the benefit of hospitals to which motorists are taken after accidents caused by the carelessness or negligence of a driver, or caused by the man himself by his own driving or by the carelessness of pedestrians in running into a motorcar. I suggest that it might be considered whether it would not be possible to create a fund by slightly increasing the licence fee which would enable the Ministry of Health, out of that fund, to compensate hospitals which administer aid in such cases to victims of road accidents. That, however, is not covered by this Amendment and I am afraid in another place I should have before now been called to order.
I would, however, suggest to the noble Earl that this is a very small extension, if indeed it is an extension at all, of principle. I believe most insurance companies would in fact pay to a voluntary hospital such expenses as the voluntary hospital has incurred. They would save the higher cost of a victim being taken to an institution where the expenses are incalculable and might be very much greater. I do not think insurance companies would seriously object to having this very small extension added to the obligations which they undertake in respect of third-party risks. The proposed subsection may be open to objection by experts in drafting, but I think the principle is one which might well be accepted. It is a very small extension, if it is an extension at all, of the principle of the Bill, and I therefore urge the noble Earl to consider very seriously and very kindly the suggestion that has been made.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Onslow in our pleasure in seeing the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, amongst us. I think it must he nearly forty years since I had my first incipient lessons in oratory in an

249
assembly over which he had presided with great distinction. I am glad to be associated with him again. I appreciate, of course, the difficulty that the Department feels. This is a Road Traffic Bill and they naturally wish to keep within the title and within the atmosphere of the Bill. But surely, if this is a Road Traffic Bill, we are not going too far if we deal with a very important consequence of road traffic. I desire, not to repeat, but to fortify what noble Lords have said. This is a matter that I have been concerned with for the last two or three years, not only in association with my noble friend Lord Luke in connection with King Edward's Hospital Fund, of which he and I are privileged to be amongst the managers, but it happens also that I am chairman of the committee of a bureau of hospital information that deals only with the provinces, and I have therefore means of knowing that this is by no means an imaginary grievance. It is found all over the country and I suggest that it is really time that we should do something. There will be great disappointment if we do not.
I appeal most earnestly to His Majesty's Government not to resist this Amendment now. I appreciate their difficulty. They do not like the actual wording. Neither do I. I should have liked to go a great deal further, knowing what I do of the difficulties. This does not deal with the whole matter, but it starts to do something, and I hope, therefore, while appreciating their position—we all understand that His Majesty's Government are not fully satisfied or easy in their mind—that they will let this Amendment go in now, knowing that they will have the assistance of those with whom I am associated and, I am sure, of all your Lordships if it is possible to think of something better on future stages of the Bill, either in this House or in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the Government must be convinced that there is no doubt as to the opinion of your Lordships' House, and I should like to repeat every word of cautious advance which has fallen from my noble friend the Lord Chairman, who is now sitting on the Woolsack. We are quite aware that there may be great difficulties in respect of this Amendment, and for my part I
250
should not like to press the Government to accept it in this particular form if they could hold out any hope that they might be prepared to deal with the matter in some other form. Let me add that I not only welcome the presence of Lord Ponsonby among us but I very much appreciate, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the manner in which he addressed your Lordships, which shows that he thoroughly understands the temper of your Lordships' House. I was puzzled, however, by the noble Lord's speech. It was capable of two explanations. Either he was representing merely what I might call the extreme conservatism of the Department to which he belongs—that may be the case—or it may be that there is some unavowed reason—I do not mean an improper reason—which lies behind the feeling of the Government which renders them very reluctant to accept this Amendment. The language he used was capable of being explained by either hypothesis.
I can hardly think he is so impressed with an undue regard for conservatism, and therefore I am tempted to think there may be some reason which the Government have not liked to avow which makes them reluctant to accept this Amendment. If that is so, and they convey it to us, it would have great weight, but, in the absence of any such explanation, I feel that, if your Lordships go to a Division, I cannot abstain from supporting my noble friends in their efforts to get this Amendment. The case seems to be extraordinarily strong, and I am naturally quite able to defend progressive opinion—I have no difficulty as extreme conservatism is foreign to me. Therefore, I am hopeful the Government will reconsider this. If, of course, they will tell us they would prefer to deal with it on the Third Reading, then, as far as I aim personally concerned, that would be conclusive; but in the absence of some such assurance, if your Lordships go to a Division, I shall be obliged to support the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, one or two speakers have referred to the fact that I expressed myself very sympathetically to the object of this Amendment when we discussed it in Committee. I have nothing to withdraw. I am entirely sympathetic to the natural desire of the

251
voluntary hospitals to obtain some payment for the very large gratuitous work which they do now owing to this increase of accidents on the roads. I fully recognise the extremely difficult position in which many, particularly of the smaller country hospitals, are put by the present state of things. I then made a suggestion which my noble relative, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to just now in another connection, that some contribution, some levy of one shilling or two shillings or whatever is necessary, should be collected with each driving licence and formed into a central fund for this purpose. It seems to me that, if you wish to do something of this sort for hospitals, that would be, although a new departure, free at any rate from all technical and legal objections. The case of those who have argued in favour of this Amendment is a comparatively easy one. I have admitted the foundation of their case. No one can dispute it as it is not open to dispute. They are arguing in the direction in which one's natural sentiments lead one, and, if I have to appear to your Lordships in the unpleasant character of the formalist and the legalist, I hope your Lordships will believe that I only do it in the interests of good legislation and with reasonable regard for the ordinary requirements of the law.
I do not want to take my stand on such a point as the fact that it is not exactly germane to the Bill, and it certainly would not be true to say that our reluctance to accept this Amendment is due to any departmental conservatism. That would be most unfair to the officers of the Department. We have met on this question since the Committee stage. Three noble Lords, accompanied by Mr. Macmillan, who is well known to your Lordships as an extremely able lawyer as well as the chairman of a hospital, were good enough to come to the Ministry of Transport and we consulted with them as to what they wanted and as to what could be done about it. First of all, I wanted to know what was in their minds. They did not like, as was indicated on the Committee stage, my suggestion of a fiat-rate collection of one shilling or something like that on every driving licence.
252
I found that there was not only a reluctance but an absolutely firm decision that in no circumstances should hospital charges be a legal liability. On that they were firm. I wanted to know where we started, and we started with those two things. It was not necessary for them to develop the case of their necessities, because that was admitted.
I wanted to find out what exactly they wanted in this Bill, and I pointed out, what your Lordships know is the fact, and what my noble relative mentioned, that they will not recover something in all the cases of accidents occurring on the roads, but only where the injured person is himself entitled to recover from an insurance company. "Nevertheless," they said, "that is the case in which for the moment it will satisfy us to recover, and we want to know how it can be done." We discussed the matter quite amicably, and with every desire to assist them, and the matter was left in this position, that we would endeavour to draw up, if we could, some clause—we did not promise to father it—which was of a reasonable and possible character. A perfectly serious and genuine effort was made to draft a clause which would be free from fundamental objections, and, I tell your Lordships frankly, we were unable to do it. The noble Marquess suggested there was some hidden reason. There was no hidden reason. We could not draft a clause which we would ourselves move or which we could accept if it were moved on the other side, and I was reluctantly compelled to communicate with them and to tell them to put down their own clause, and if they did I feared I might have to oppose it.
I want to point out what fundamental principles this clause, or any clause like it, really violates. First of all the Amendment provides that where any payment is made by an insurer in respect of bodily injury to a person who has received treatment in a hospital there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment to an amount not exceeding £25 for each person so treated. That means that the insured person cannot, of course, sue for hospital expenses, because they are not a legal liability. He cannot put them in

253
his claim. The original suggestion was that this amount should be paid out of the claim, and it was pointed out that the result of that might be to leave the injured person worse off than he was now, because he might have to pay more than he recovered. For that reason the Amendment appears in its present form. It means that the insurance company is to have placed upon it a liability which is only a legal liability in the sense that it is imposed by Statute. It is no part of their original contractual liability to the insured person. But Parliament says you shall recover under the ordinary law the damages to which you are entitled, and over and above that the insurance company, although you are not legally liable and the insurance company is not legally liable, shall pay in addition a certain sum to the hospital for what is called voluntary treatment. That seems to me to violate almost every principle of law.
There is another aspect of that which struck me very strongly, and which I would ask those who are interested in hospitals to consider. Is it not rather difficult to go on talking about voluntary hospitals when you are compulsorily raising money by statutory obligation'. We have had references to rate-aided hospitals, and it seems to me in their own interests that hospitals are embarking upon rather a slippery slope when they insist upon receiving money under a statutory compulsion, and yet retain the title, and endeavour to retain the complete status, of voluntary hospitals. In their own interests I think they would be wise to be careful before they embark upon this point of view. Those seem to me very fundamental objections to the clause as it stands here. There is, of course, the other objection that it will increase the premiums—not very much, said Lord Knutsford. Well, I do not know.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I did not say so, but I will now.
EARL RUSSELL: With the courage which always characterises the noble Viscount, he says 130 now. But let us consider what the three cases are. There are three cases, of course, as has been pointed out. There is the case of the treatment by your private doctor or nursing home; then is the case of treatment in rate-aided hospitals; and, thirdly,
254
there is the case of treatment in voluntary hospitals. In the first two eases it is perfectly true that the insurance company has to pay, and it could be included in the claim. In the last case it does not have to pay. If anybody says it is not fair that it should not pay, well, it is not fair that somebody should not pay —I quite agree. Morally, of course, somebody ought to pay, but legally no payment is available. Now, it may be said, and I think truly, that insurance companies, when they are fixing their premiums, have to provide for the average of all those three cases; that is to say, they clearly have to provide for two classes of case in which I think they are bound to pay, and they take their chance of the third class of case, in which they are not bound to pay. It may, therefore, mean a small—not a large—increase in premium. But I should not like to guarantee that, and certainly the Government would not like to be responsible for it.
You have now the rather more difficult case to consider of the person who under this Bill is allowed to be his own insurer. In his case—and his case deals mostly with what you might call the working class practically all of whom would normally be treated in voluntary hospitals—in his case you may say that on the average it will mean an addition of £10 or £12 to his claim for damages which he has to pay; because I assume —I do not know whether this Amendment succeeds in doing it, but I have no doubt it is intended to place the obligation upon himself as well as on the insurance company—
LORD LUKE: It is not intended to cover that.
EARL RUSSELL: If it is not intended to cover that, a very large class of cases will be exempted; but if his case is covered it will mean in his case probably an average of £10 addition to each of his claims. Now, again your Lordships may say it is right that the large employer whose servants are injured in the course of his employment in this way should contribute to the hospital. Of course it is right, and I think probably those responsible for the hospitals would say that in the majority of cases the large employers do contribute to the hospitals. There is another point where I

255
think the hospitals would, in their own interests, be wise to pause before they insist upon this. If there is an increase of premiums which is directly due to this, and if it is in any way substantial, or if there is anything which causes a sense of grievance in the minds of motorists, it may very well be that voluntary subscriptions will fall off to a larger extent than these involuntary subscriptions will be received. For all these reasons I think the hospitals are unwise in their own interests, but I really think it would be impossible for us as a Government to accept a clause which seems to me to violate fundamental legal principles. I know that is a dull and uninteresting line to take, but I am giving it to your Lordships as the effect on my mind after most carefully considering how these difficulties can be met.
The other suggestion I made of a flat rate of a shilling or so violates no principle at all if you like to impose it. Parliament can impose it and there is an end of it. Here you are really doing a very extraordinary thing. You are saying that people should be paid something to which they are not legally entitled. I am not sure that the fact that they are paid something under Statute may not lead, and possibly in a shorter time than might be expected, to some sort of control under Statute which I am sure is the last thing they would want. I am sorry, but the Government cannot accept this clause.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I have been a great deal impressed by the noble Earl's arguments and I want to put one question to him. Supposing I go, quite apart from this Bill, to an insurance company and say: "I want you to insure me"—whether at third-party risk or directly for my own injury makes no difference to the principle—"against the consequences of an accident. Of course, if I employ a doctor that will be part of the normal expenses. But I want you to go further than that. If I am carried to a hospital I should feel morally bound to pay something to the hospital. I want you to insure me against that moral claim as well as against the legal claim." Would the noble Earl say that would be an impossible thing to do? Of course, you could make such a contract. There would be no difficulty in making such a con-
256
If you can make it voluntarily, why cannot you make such a contract by Statute?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite understand the noble Viscount's difficulty. Of course, you could make such a contract. You could make any contract you like. You could make an additional contract if you liked that you should be paid £10 a week while you were there.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I tried to put the point very briefly to save time. I understood that the noble Earl's great difficulty was that they were asking to put upon the insurers a claim which is not a legal claim.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: In point of fact the insurers by contract might quite well undertake such a claim and might agree to pay it though it was not a legal claim at all. It is merely a question how you choose to draw your contract with the insurers. If you can do it by a voluntary contract I cannot see why it is so frightfully wicked to say by legislation: "We are going to make a contract by Statute," because that is what you are going to do for the insurers. Why cannot you say that that shall include this moral claim as well as the legal claim?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "subject to any conditions contained in the policy." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the difficulty is as the clause now stands that if the conditions of a policy are violated no compensaton will be payable to anybody. I will give you an instance.
EARL RUSSELL: I will accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Then I need not say any more.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 22, leave out ("subject to any conditions contained in the policy").—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("or classes of persons")
Page 29, line 24, leave out from ("liability") to the end of line 25, and insert ("which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, to insert: "(5) In this Part 3f this Act the expression 'policy of insurance' includes a covering note." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to authorise the issue of a certificate of insurance as soon as the covering note is issued in advance of the policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 35, at end insert ("(5). In this Part of this Act the expression policy of insurance' includes a covering note").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Requirements in respect of securities.
36.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act a security must—
(a) be given either by an authorised insurer or by some body of persons which carries on in the United Kingdom the business of giving securities of a like kind and which has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court for and on behalf of the Supreme Court the sum of fifteen thousand pounds in respect of that business; and
THE EARL OF,CRANBROOK THE EARL OF,CRANBROOK moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "business," to insert "or by a bank which is a member of the London Clearing House." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to widen the field from which the securities required by Clause 34 can be obtained. I believe the noble Earl is prepared to accept this Amendment and I will detain your Lordships no longer.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 1, after ("business") insert ("or by a bank which is a member of the London Clearing House").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, we think that this is a very desirable extension.
258
It may be necessary, possibly, to make some drafting Amendments to it but in principle we accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 12, leave out from ("discharge") to ("and") in line 15, and insert ("any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under the last preceding section which may be incurred by him or them").
Page 30, line 30,, leave out from ("any") to ("have") in line 32, and insert ("such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy of insurance under the last preceding section which may be incurred by him").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 37:
Forgery of certificates.
37.—(1) If, with intent to deceive, any person—

(a) forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person a certificate of insurance or certificate of security; or

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a certificate as to be calculated to deceive,

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable—

(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months;

(ii) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(2) If any person issues a certificate of insurance or certificate of security which is to his knowledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is proposed to leave out this clause because the substance of it will be incorporated in Clause 94.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 37.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Certain conditions to policies or securities to be of no effect]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL: I will accept the Amendment of Lord Danesfort.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("effect") insert ("in connection with such claims as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section thirty-five").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40:
Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.
40.—(1) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce his certificate, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that, if the driver of a motor vehicle within five days after the date on which the production of his certificate was so required, produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.
EARL RUSSELL: The first Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds") and insert ("guilty of an offence").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not move my Amendment in the proviso to subsection (1), after "person" to insert "or by his duly authorised representative."
LORD SWAYTHLING: This Amendment is similar to one Lord Howe moved in an earlier part of the Bill with regard to a driving licence. In that case the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he could not accept it on the question of identity. In this case there is no question of the identity of the driver. The certificate of insurance applies to a motor car, and the owner does not have to appear on the car. I hope the noble Earl will accept that the authorised representative should be allowed to produce the certificate.
EARL RUSSELL: The same arguments apply here as in the case of a driver. A man ought to have his certificate, and if he has not his certificate with him he is to be guilty of an offence. What is required is that the accused person who
260
would otherwise have been guilty of an offence should himself come and produce the certificate. I do not think it is a severe obligation to place upon him.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The noble Earl says it is the duty of a driver to have a certificate on him, but a considerable difficulty might arise where the owner lives in one part of the country and the car is in another part of the country and is driven by different men at different times.
EARL RUSSELL: I will consider that again before Third Reading. The next Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("of an offence")
Page 32, line 15, after ("subsection") insert ("of the offence of failing to produce his certificate")
page 32, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("under this Act")
Page 32, line 27, after ("not") insert ("at the time")
Page 32, line 32, leave out ("liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds") and insert ("guilty of an offence").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my next four Amendments are also drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out from ("reported") to the end of line 40.
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("his") and insert ("for examination the relevant")
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("his")
Page 32, line 44, after ("not") insert ("or was not").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41:
Regulations for purposes of Part II.
41. The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act and generally for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make regulations—

(a) as to the forms to be used for the purposes of this Part of this Act;

(b) as to applications for and the issue of certificates of insurance and certificates of security and any other documents which may be prescribed and as to the keeping of records of documents;

261

(c) as to the issue of copies of certificates of insurance and certificates of security lost or destroyed;

(d) as to the custody, production, cancellation and surrender of certificates of insurance and certificates of security;

EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to paragraph (b) "and the furnishing of particulars thereof or the giving of information with respect thereto to the Minister or a chief officer of police". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is put on the Paper because the Minister may have to make regulations to provide that responsible officers should be able to obtain necessary information as to the existence of a valid policy and things of that sort from insurance companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, after ("documents") insert ("and the furnishing of particulars thereof or the giving of information with respect thereto to the Minister or a chief officer of police").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 13, leave out from the second ("of") to ("lost") in line 14 and insert (" any such certificates or other documents which are")
Page 33, line 17, leave out from ("of") to end of line 18 and insert ("any such certificates or other documents").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury is content with the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl on Clause 93. He does not desire therefore to move the new subsection of which he has given Notice.
Clause 42:
Amendment of Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
(2) Where a company carries on motor vehicle insurance business, the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, shall apply with respect to that business, in the same way as it applies to accident insurance business subject to the following modifications:—
(a) Every assurance company carrying on or intending to carry on motor vehicle
262
insurance business shall deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court as respects such business, the sum of fifteen thousand pounds whether or not it carries on any other class of business; and
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, at the end of subsection (2) (a), to insert:—
Provided that no assurance company shall be required to deposit or keep deposited such sum where such company commenced to carry on motor vehicle insurance business or accident insurance business in the United Kingdom before the passing of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is a very-simple one. By Section 32 (b) of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, companies which were at the time of the passing of that Act carrying on accident insurance business were exempted from the necessity to which other companies were liable of depositing a sum of £15,000. The object of my Amendment is to continue the exemption which was given by the Act of 1909 to those companies which were at the time of the passing of that Act carrying on the business of accident insurance or motor insurance. The effect of Clause 42 of this Bill as it stands is to remove that exemption from those companies to which they were entitled under the Act of 1909, and the result will be that every company which carries on or intends to carry on motor vehicle insurance business, no matter when it commenced to carry on such business, and even though it had already made the usual deposit in the case of other insurance business, would be bound to deposit £15,000 under the Act.
I venture to suggest that is not a reasonable proposition. It would be really an unnecessary hardship on those companies which had been carrying on this class of business for the last twenty years or more. I dare say it will be no hardship on large, rich companies with a great capital behind them to deposit this £15,000, but in the case of small companies who have been carrying on business successfully with the exemption given by the Act of 1909, to have to put up £15,000 might hamper or restrict their operations very much. It might have this additional result that it would largely diminish competition. It might have the

263
effect of turning over a large proportion or a very great part of the business to the big companies. That would be stifling competition which would have the effect probably of increasing premiums. Therefore, from every point of view I would urge the Government to continue this exemption to the companies of which I speak, which was granted by the Act of 1909. I can see no necessity for this deposit. They have carried on business for many years without it, and I ask the Government to be good enough to continue this exemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 44, after ("business") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord is familiar with this subject, but it is definitely intended to exclude paragraph (b) of Section 32 of the Act of 1909 for a reason which I think will appeal to him. There is a Committee, called, I think, the Clauson Committee, which settled the draft of a new Bill which has been in draft for some time at the Board of Trade under which this deposit will be required in respect of these separate businesses, and it was thought desirable, as we were bringing in legislation in that connection, that it should accord with the Bill which will be presented by the Board of Trade as soon as is convenient, which has been agreed to by the association concerned and has been carefully considered in conjunction with the insurance companies. We are putting in the kind of legislation which we hope will in due course be provided in accordance with that agreement. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: Would it not be better to wait until this comprehensive Bill is brought in and the whole subject dealt with? I suggest that this would be the more convenient course, meanwhile continuing the exemption given by the Act of 1909.
EARL RUSSELL: The Board of Trade would not be prepared to sanction any new legislation that did not accord with the draft Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:—
Duration of Part II of Act.
( ). This Part of this Act shall continue in force for two years from the passing of this Act and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It limits the operation of this Part of the Bill to two years. The trouble is, as has been stated by the noble Earl and by Lord Ponsonby to-night, that this is an entirely new principle in insurance. It is an experiment, and a wild and half-baked one at that. The noble Earl has given no assurance to the motoring world as to whether premiums are going to be increased or not. If a general rise occurs as the result of this Bill it will amount to an increase of motor taxation for which the Government will have entire responsibility. It is not at all certain that this legislation will achieve its object. There are cases in which there will he no compensation where the conditions of the policy are varied. Something has been done by the acceptance of one of my Amendments, but there will inevitably be other cases, such as that of the "joy rider." There is no compensation for anybody knocked down by a stolen car. The noble Earl was amused at my raising that point at an earlier stage, but it is true, nevertheless, and not a negligible point.
On the subject of premiums, the noble Earl spoke only to-night of a possible increase in premiums in connection with the hospitals. He did not show whether they would be increased. I have here some extracts from his speeches at various stages of the Bill, all pointing in the same direction. It is almost certain that there will be an increase in premiums under this Bill. I submit that the best way of securing a definite review of this Part of the Bill is to limit its operation to two years in order to see how it works. If that is accepted, the subject can then be raised under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That is the best way of securing a revision of legislation such as this. The original Motor Car Act passed in 1903 was passed under very much the same conditions. It was to run for three years and it was then continued from year to year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl may see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 3, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if the insurance companies are rich enough, surely they are able to stand two years without raising their premiums. It is no use limiting it for less than five or ten years to stop that sort of thing.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl's optimism, is incurable and his persistence is admirable, but he cannot expect me to accept this Amendment. I know he is opposed to compulsory insurance, but the Government and both Houses of Parliament are going to insist on it whether the premiums are raised or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:—
( ). This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modification—
In Section thirty-four the expression "local authority" means any county, town, or district council.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is merely the application of this Part of the Bill to Scotland.
Amendment moved.—
Page 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43:
Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of users of highways.
(3) Before such directions are issued under this section, they shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such directions shall not be issued unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given, the Minister may issue the directions in the form in which they have been so approved.
(4) The Minister shall cause the directions for the time being in force under this section to be printed and put on sale at a price not exceeding one penny for each copy, and the directions so in force shall be called "the highway code."
(5) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the highway code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including
266
proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the next Amendment are intended to substitute an affirmative Resolution of both Houses in the case of the highway code. What is proposed is to leave out subsection (3) and to insert later a new subsection (5) which will read:—
"Any directions issued under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and shall cease to be in force on the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which they were issued unless at some time before the expiration of that period they have been approved by Resolution passed by each House of Parliament:
Provided that in reckoning the said period of three months no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
The general procedure as to the regulations arises later on Clause 93, but this is instead of the Amendment which was inserted by Lord Brentford which provided for the approval of the draft either with or without modifications. The question of modification would present great difficulty and we think that, if we provide here for an affirmative approval of both Houses of the regulations, that would meet the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 13, leave out subsection (3).—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I understand the difficulties which my noble friend feels about the words relating to modifications or additions. On that there may be some practical difficulty, but I cannot conceive why he wants to have the regulations in force for three months before they are repealed. That seems to me to be quite against the whole sense of the debate in Committee, which was that they did not think that regulations of this importance ought to come into force at all unless the two Houses of Parliament had agreed to them by an affirmative Resolution. I suggest to my noble friend that that is quite enough for the purpose which he stated to the House. If he thinks it is essential to leave out those words I personally

267
should have some regret, though I can understand a case being made for it, but I cannot see what case can be made for putting in the period of three months. It is totally opposed to the doctrine that a Minister ought not to legislate without the consent of Parliament.
EARL RUSSELL: I should think that possibly the words got in by force of habit, because they are regular words in cases of this sort; but they would not apply possibly to the highway code, which is not like regulations. If the noble Viscount will allow me I will consider the matter before the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope very much that the noble Earl will take the course he suggests, and reconsider the proposal. In fact I do not think many of us would be prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which he has proposed it. I might say that the case is even stronger than it was put by my noble relative on the Cross Benches, because it is not merely that this code would be in force for three months without the assent of Parliament, but it might be for a much longer period, because he takes steps to say that no interval due to the Prorogation or adjournment of Parliament shall count. On the other hand the strong view of this House in Committee was that the code ought not to be brought in except by positive and affirmative Resolution of both Houses. No doubt by inadvertence, the Minister is taking power to put them in force for it may be six months without Parliamentary authority.
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot help thinking, when I look at the words, that the draftsman put them in rather by force of habit, under the impression that they were applying to something under which something had to be done. The highway code is not like the regulations, and I will certainly consider the matter.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask whether the best course would not be to omit simply those words of the subsection as it stands and consider later on whether any further Amendment is necessary, because I think it would be a little distasteful to some of us even to put into the Bill such a subsection as drafted at present.
EARL RUSSELL: I would rather consider the omission of these words. Would that not meet the noble Viscount?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the noble Earl proposes to leave the Bill as it is and consider the matter?
EARL RUSSELL: No, I was suggesting that we should put in the new subsection (5).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl admitted that as at present advised he does not see the reason for the subsection in the form in which it stands on the Paper. The obvious course is to leave the Bill unchanged until we find out the proper drafting.
EARL RUSSELL: I should be very sorry to do that, because really the words as they stand now in subsection (3) are quite impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the Third Reading you can deal with the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: Very well, if you insist upon that course.
THE LORD SPEAKER: The Amendment withdrawn?
EARL RUSSELL: No, negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment to move, after subsection (4), to insert:—
(4) A section of such code shall contain regulations for the prevention of reckless or dangerous driving and any person who fails to observe any of the regulations in that section shall be prima facie guilty of reckless or dangerous driving unless he can show that such failure could not in the actual circumstances of the case involve any danger to the public.
(5) Subject as aforesaid
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is prepared to consider this Amendment. If he tells me he is not, I do not think I will move it.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I would rather not accept this Amendment, because these provisions in the highway code are intended to be of general application, and it would be rather dangerous to insist upon the directions being regarded as being almost of the same

269
validity as the clause of the Act. I think that would be undesirable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Under these circumstances I will not move.
Clause 44:
Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads.
44.—(1) The Minister may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles, or of any specified class or description of vehicles, on any specified road within the area of the council in any case in which it appears to him, having regard to the result of the inquiry, to be proved that any such vehicles cannot be used, or cannot without restriction be used, on that road without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein, or of other persons using the road, or that the road is unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles:
Provided that, where the application is an application solely for the restriction of the speed of vehicles, the provision in this subsection shall have effect as if references to a public inquiry were not contained therein.
(2) The Minister may on the application of the council of any county or county borough, or of any borough, not being a county borough, or urban district having a population of over twenty thousand according to the last census for the time being and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and a succeeding Amendment refer to orders of the Minister relating to speed limits. The third and fourth paragraphs of the Second Schedule refer to inquiries which are to be held, as in the present case, where speed limits are to be imposed. This clause gives the Minister power to impose speed limits without, I understand, having any inquiry at all. This point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in Committee, and the noble Earl then said he did not think the words would prevent the holding of a public inquiry, but he said he would consider the matter. As the Bill stands at present, if an inquiry is not held it will be very
270
difficult indeed, if not impossible, for those interested in the imposition of any particular speed limit to find out that it is the intention to impose a speed limit until it has actually been done. The present practice, which has always worked extremely well, is that when it is desired to impose a special speed limit the Minister always gives notice in the Press, and a public inquiry is held. Provision is made in the Second Schedule for a public inquiry. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, leave out lines 8 to 11.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl is not so familiar with the practice in this matter as I am. In the early days these inquiries were comparatively frequent. If your Lordships will look at the clause you will see that it says the Minister may, "after holding a public inquiry" do certain things; that is to say, before he can act he is compelled to hold a public inquiry. The proviso which the noble Earl wants to leave out says that he may, without holding a public inquiry, make provision for the restriction of the speed of vehicles. That has always been the law, and it is under the law, standing exactly like that, that all the inquiries to which the noble Earl refers have been held. The Ministry has always caused these applications to be made known, and inquiries have been held whenever there was opposition to them, but in a great many cases—and this happened, I think, before the noble Earl was interested at any rate in the legislative side of motoring—as a result of conversations between representative bodies of motorists and of the local authorities compromises were arrived at, and some speed limits were not imposed, and it was possible to make the order without holding a public inquiry. If the Amendment were carried a public inquiry would have to be held in every case whether there was opposition or not. This has been the practice now since 1903, and has worked perfectly.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): "In the case of

271
the City of London an application under this section may -be made by the Common Council of the City." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 21, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I ask why this exception is made of the City of London? Why does it not apply to the borough councils as well in the County of London? As I understand the matter when applications are made now they have to go to the Comity Council. That is rather a cumbersome proceeding, because the County Council has to forward it on to another authority. If the City has the right of direct application, why cannot the borough councils in London have it also?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know whether at the other end of the town the noble Lord would be prepared to compare the City with a borough council. I have not often heard it done. The City is always put in an exceptional position and that is the reason why the exemption is specially mentioned here.
LORD JESSEL: I agree that that is so, but with all due respect to the City of London, there is the City of Westminster which is far bigger in many respects. If the noble Earl looks into the question he will see that it is not a question of jealousy of the City of London but of the cumbersome procedure which has to be followed at present. This point has been raised by the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee which represents all the London boroughs and on which there is a representative of the City of London. I hope the noble Earl will look into the matter. I wished to raise it on Clause 44. I did not put an Amendment on the Paper because I understood that it was not right at this stage, and as the noble Earl had an Amendment down I thought I would ask him to have the question looked into. I am not, I may say, representing any particular London borough on this question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45:
Erection of notice boards, etc.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges, no such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid other than such as comply with the regulations under this Part of this Act shall be erected, placed or displayed upon or adjacent to any road or otherwise than in conformity with any such general or special directions as aforesaid, or by any person other than the highway authority or a person authorised by the highway authority.
Nothing in this subsection shall apply to any signal, direction post, sign or device erected, placed or displayed by the owners or workers of any tramway in pursuance of powers conferred by any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act.
(3) The highway authority shall by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of any land on which any such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid is erected or displayed to remove it if it is not authorised by the highway authority, and if any person fails to comply with such a notice the highway authority may themselves effect the removal, doing as little damage as may be, and may recover summarily as a civil debt from the person so in default the expense incurred by them in so doing.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges"; and in the second paragraph of subsection (2), before "any signal" to insert "any notice in respect of the use of a bridge or to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments are intended to make it clear that the provisions of this subsection do not apply to notices in respect of bridges. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, leave out lines 14 and 15.
Page 36, line 24, after ("to") insert ("any notice in respect of the use of a bridge or to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), after "aforesaid," to insert "or any object which so closely resembles a prescribed sign or signal that it might reasonably be taken to be such a sign or signal." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to authorise the removal of misleading objects or lights which might be mistaken for signs or signals and so cause accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 32, after ("aforesaid") insert ("or any object which so closely resembles a prescribed sign or signal that it might reasonably be taken to be such a sign or signal").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Provisions with respect to stretching of ropes, etc., across the roads]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 30, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway")
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BERTHE OF THAME: My Lords, what is the object of substituting "highway" for "road"?
EARL RUSSELL: That is what I was really intending to tell your Lordships. The point is that if the public have access to a road which is not a highway it can only be on the invitation of the owner, who is liable at Common Law if he exposes them to danger.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does "highway" include secondary roads?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, of course it does —any road repairable at large.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to transfer toll bridges to highway authorities]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Amendment I have put down to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 21, leave out from ("borrow") to end of line 23, and insert ("in the case of a county council under the Local Government Act, 1888, and in the case of a borough or district council under and subject to the provisions of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
Provisions as to extraordinary traffic.
(2) The sums recoverable under this section shall be recoverable in the High Court, or if the claim does not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds, in the county court in
274
the district of which the road or any part thereof is situate:
Provided that proceedings for the recovery of any such sums shall be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the damage has been done, or where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract or work extending over a long period, shall be commenced not later than six months after completion of the contract or work.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"Provided that in no case shall the expenses recoverable by the highway authority from the undertaker be more than sufficient to restore the road to the condition in which it was before the extraordinary traffic commenced."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment because I think the refusal of the Government to accept one which was moved by Lord Elibank on behalf of Lord Lovat in the Committee stage may cause risk of hardship both to buyers and sellers of timber. It was said then that the cases of extraordinary traffic were very few nowadays. That may be partly due, I think, to the fact that so many woods were cleared during the War, but that may not always be the case. We have been recommended and exhorted to plant trees, and the natural place for such planting is land of little value for agriculture which is usually in rather remote parts. The roads in such places are naturally little used and are quite unfit for heavy traffic.
I may give your Lordships an example of what happened during the War. The Government bought a plantation on the borders of Exmoor of about ten acres, and I believe gave about £100 an acre for it. The timber had to be carted about ten miles to a railway station, and nearly half the distance was over a ridge which ran through moorland at an elevation at its highest of about 1,200 feet. The claim made by the district council for the damage done to the road—and it was severely damaged—was no less than £1,471, and after a good deal of discussion the Government agreed to pay £699 towards that, and the contractor who was doing the hauling had to pay another £60. The noble Earl said in Committee that, even if the vendor of timber had to pay something towards extraordinary traffic, he still got his profit. In this case if this gentleman, who happened to be yeoman

275
farmer, had had to pay £700 out of about £1,000 his profit would have come down to very small proportions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this proviso is to the effect that the expense recoverable shall not be more- than sufficient to restore the road to the condition in which it was before the extraordinary traffic. I do not think the noble Earl has given us any instance in which expenses were recovered larger than were sufficient to restore the road to its ordinary condition. I have heard of a great many cases of claims for extraordinary traffic, and I understand the local authority get a good deal less than the cost of putting a road back into the condition in which it was before. In spite of the plea of the noble Earl for the unfortunate owner of timber, he cannot suggest that a private individual is to plough up the public highways for his own purposes without paying for it. There is no necessity for this Amendment. They could not possibly recover more than the expense of putting the road into its proper condition.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 51, to insert the following new clause:—
Power of highway authorities to erect and light street refuges.
( ). Every local authority which is a highway authority within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, may for the purpose of protecting traffic along the road from danger or of making the crossing of any road less dangerous to foot passengers, erect, light, maintain, alter and remove places of refuge in any road vested in the authority.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this matter has a rather curious history. Highway authorities were given power to put up refuges but were not given power to light them. That was rather curious and obviously made it impossible to put up refuges in certain cases. Also they did not count as road improvements and therefore could not receive grants from the Road Fund. The object of this new clause is to make both things possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, insert the said new clause.— (Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble Earl. This new clause says:
"Every local authority which is a highway authority, within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909."
The Local Government Act, 1929, altered the law with regard to highway authorities. I do not know how that affects this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain.
EARL RUSSELL: This part of the Development Act of 1909 is the one always referred to for purposes of grants from the Ministry. Therefore I suppose it is all right.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They are not quite the same thing now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Advances from Road Fund]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (1), to insert as new subsections:
(2) Where the functions of maintaining and repairing a county road are for the time being vested in the council of an urban district that council shall, in relation to that road be deemed to be a highway authority within the meaning of the said Part II.
(3) The expression "improvement of roads" in the said Part II shall include the erection, lighting, maintenance, alteration and removal of places of refuge in roads.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two new subsections also have the effect of making it possible to make grants to highway authorities. Under the provisions of last year's Local Government Act county councils will remain highway authorities in respect of county roads in urban areas even if the functions of maintenance and repair are exercised by the district council. The object of this Amendment is to enable grants to be made to urban authorities as if they were highway authorities, and to enable the provision and lighting of refuges.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 31, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 38, leave out ("such a purpose") and insert ("weighing motor vehicles or trailers").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after Clause 52, to insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roach under their control.
(2) Before sanctioning any works for the widening or improvement of any existing road or for the making of any new road, a highway authority shall consider whether it would be possible and desirable to include footpaths in such works, and if so, shall not sanction such works unless such footpaths are included.
(3) If the provision of footpaths is not proposed as part of such works no advance shall be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of such works unless the Minister is satisfied that such footpaths are not possible and desirable.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to which I attach a very great deal of importance. I ventured to move it, not quite in its present form but very nearly so, on the Committee stage, and after discussion the noble Earl was good enough to treat it extremely sympathetically and to say he would be very glad to consider whether something on those lines could not be inserted in the Bill. Since then he has been good enough to inform me that he is not prepared to make any such insertion. The only ground he has so far given me is that he does not think it right to make any difference in the duties of highway authorities. He has also told me that the practice in his Department is to provide footpaths in a certain number of cases. If he will forgive my saying so, the account he gave me of his Department's proceedings did not seem to touch the kind of case I had in mind at all. It appeared to deal with great arterial roads, provided with six-foot footways on each side, with green verges and I do not know what. That is not the kind of thing I had in mind.
What was in my mind was to provide a small footway, where possible, for the use of the infirm and particularly for the use of children. That was the object of the
278
Amendment I moved and I still think it extremely desirable that something of the kind should be inserted in the Bill. The first part of my proposed clause merely declares that it shall be part of the duty of the highway authority to provide a footway where they deem it necessary or desirable. It is not part of the duty of a highway authority at all to provide footways as far as I can make out the legislation, and the noble Earl told me I was not wrong in that respect. There is no duty to provide footways even where highway authorities themselves deem that they are desirable or necessary. I think this is really a very great grievance, particularly in the county districts. I earnestly press upon the noble Earl the immense importance of putting in some such declaration as this. It cannot do any harm. It is merely the declaration of a duty. It does not take away the discretion of the highway authority to say whether a footpath is necessary, but it points out to the authority that this is a thing it has to consider. It goes no further.
The two other subsections merely say that the Ministry, in administering the Fund, shall have regard to the necessity of providing footpaths, and when they are asked for a contribution to road improvements they shall enquire whether it is possible to make a footpath—not a six-foot path with verges but a little footway which will make it safer for the children going to school. I attach great importance to this, and I trust the noble Earl will be able to meet this serious grievance, which is felt by the most helpless part of the population, the part least able to protect itself. These children have not even votes. That, I am sure, will appeal to noble Lords on that side of the House. I hope something will be done. If not, I am afraid I shall have to ask the opinion of the House on the point.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is always very difficult to satisfy the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I beg you to try.
EARL RUSSELL: We tried to satisfy him with regard to this matter and we

279
furnished him with information as to what we were doing. The last paragraph of our communication is worth recalling. We told him that the policy and intention of the Ministry of Transport in this matter of footways were always brought to the attention of the Departmental divisional road engineers on the occasion of the periodical meetings convened by the chief engineer. There might be something to be said for the noble Viscount's Amendment if he confined it to his first subsection. I think he is right in saying that in the old schemes the idea of footpaths did not occur. But it is a little difficult to say what this would involve. Ought not the highway authority to deem a footpath to be necessary and desirable on every road? I should have thought the noble Viscount would be the first person to say so. If so, you would be imposing a very considerable duty which I think the authorities rather resent. It may be said that it rests with them to exercise their powers. If the noble Viscount would accept merely this declaration of the duty of the highway authority, so as to keep it before their eyes that it is desirable, coupled with the practice of the Ministry which he has already learned, there would be no great difficulty. There is not really very much point in the subsequent subsections, because they are observed in practice now, as I think we satisfied him.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: More or less.
EARL RUSSELL: This is putting a new duty on the highway authorities. I do not know that they will thank the noble Viscount. I should have thought that, if they were competent to exercise their duties, they probably would always act upon it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I understand the noble Earl, he tells me that, if I will strike out the last two subsections, he will not resist the first subsection.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If that is the offer, at this hour of the evening I accept it.
EARL RUSSELL: Then I will not say that the noble Viscount is hard to satisfy.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If you only tried, you would find me very easy to satisfy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52, insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
(".—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Regulations.
53.—(l) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act is to be prescribed, and for regulating the number, nature and use of brakes, including skid pans and locking chains in the case of vehicles drawn by horses or other animals, or any class or description of such vehicles, when used on roads, and for securing that such brakes shall be efficient and kept in proper working order and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test and inspect any such brakes, whether on a road or elsewhere
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (1) "and for making provision for the removal from roads of vehicles in the case of which there has been a breakdown or which have been left in a dangerous position on a road." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment explains itself. It is for the purpose of removing vehicles which are broken down.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 6, after ("elsewhere") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to suggest to the noble Earl that perhaps your Lordships would like to go to bed.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, we have now come to the end of the Amendments on Part III of the Bill. I would have liked to have gone further, but I cannot say your Lordships have delayed the Bill in any way. I would propose to put it down again on Monday, after the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, which I understand will not take long.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.