Lords Sitting of 27 January 1930

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

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The Bill is, of course, now in a state of great confusion, but the Government have no responsibility for that. I only desire to say a very few words in moving the Third Reading. I understand it is possible that the Amendments to Clause 4 down in the name of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Cozens-Hardy, may be on certain grounds held to be not in order, but in any case I would take this opportunity of saying a word on the question of trade union regulations. There really is nothing in the contention that some of the trade union rules, so far as the wording is concerned, somewhat resemble the genuinely-seeking-work procedure. The answer to this, as I have pointed out in this House, on two occasions before, is that the administration of the said rules by the trade unions, whatever the words are, is in fact very different from what the administration of the genuinely-seeking-work procedure has been. I would say quite definitely that in practice—and that is what matters—the procedure of the trade unions in regard to unemployed men and benefit, whatever their rules are, will not be any more strict than, even if as strict as, the procedure under the Government's Clause 4 that your Lordships struck out. That really is the fallacy of all these attempts to embarrass the Government by quoting the trade union regulations. They are remote from reality and are only brought forward by those unfamiliar with the facts.
I would like to point out before I sit down something with regard to what the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) said in his speech the other night. Noble Lords

285
opposite pick out certain points from some trade union regulations, and are careful not to call attention to other regulations in the White Paper. The fact is that in many of the trade unions the regulations are, so far as words are concerned, a good deal less strict than Clause 4 of the Government. No one listening to the noble Marquess, who spoke of twenty-five out of twenty-six cases, would imagine for a moment that in this actual White Paper there are eighty-two other uses out of 108 whose regulations do not require the members to seek work. He did not tell you that. I do not propose to discuss the matter further unless the Amendments of the noble Lord opposite are held to be in order, in which case I shall have, on the details of his Amendments, some further observations to make. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was unaware that the silence which beset the Government on the last occasion would, upon second thoughts, be found to be inopportune, and that the noble Lord would carefully get up something to say upon the Third Reading. It would have been better if he had made these observations at the time when your Lordships had the subject under consideration. I listened as far as I could, but I did not altogether follow what the noble Lord said. I simply took this White Paper in my hand and I looked at the first two unions which presented themselves to my eye. Here is the rule of the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association:—
"No member who is suspended from his employment is entitled to this support unless he proves to his branch that he is searching for work."
Then take the Wall Paper Workers' Union:—
"Any member out of work neglecting to apply for a situation when ordered to do so by the secretary, or not using reasonable efforts to obtain work.…"
The noble Lord will find it is exactly the same more or less, unless I am under a great mistake, in ail except perhaps one of the twenty-six instances which the White Paper gives.
But I do not rise to make another speech upon the Third Reading of this
286
Bill. Your Lordships have seen fit to make certain changes in the Bill, and they stand for better or worse. But I do rise upon rather an important matter of procedure. Since I came to the House, that is to say about half an hour ago, there has been put into my hands a printed Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy. It purports to be an Amendment which he proposes to move after Third Reading to-day. I am quite sure the noble Lord will allow me to say there is no member of your Lordships' House whom I hold in higher respect than I do himself, and there is nothing in what I am about to say that is intended as a criticism of anything except the particular procedure which, I venture to think with great submission and respect, the noble Lord ought not to have pursued. The rule of your Lordships' House that no Amendment should be moved after Third Reading except with Notice is very rigidly applied. I have addressed your Lordships on the subject on many occasions, and I have had considerable experience, not merely in the general proceedings of your Lordships' House, but on this particular matter, and my experience is that no Amendment after Third Reading should be moved except after Notice.
The form in which it stands in the Standing Orders of the House in the "Companion to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords on Public Business" is:—
"The Bill having been read a Third time, the opportunity arises for proposing further Amendments. Previous notice should be given of them, if they be of any importance, and they are printed and circulated."
That is the form in which it stands in this old "Companion," but, as a matter of fact, we apply it even more rigidly, and for the last ten years, I venture to say, no Amendment has been allowed to be put in after Third Reading—even an unimportant Amendment—except after Notice. Your Lordships will observe that not only must Notice be given, but the Amendment must be printed and circulated. This Amendment has never been circulated. Therefore, I think it would be very unwise of your Lordships, notwithstanding the respect we have for the noble Lord, if we entertained his Amendment at all—I mean wholly without reference to its subject matter, and merely as a matter of procedure.

287
And this is not merely one of those technical rules which have really no reason behind them. It is a rule founded upon experience and common sense. If your Lordships put in Amendments on the Committee stage, all right, there is an opportunity on the Report stage of putting them right if they turn out to be in any way erroneous. If on the Report stage an Amendment is inserted, then your Lordships again have an opportunity after the Third Reading of putting right any mistake. But if the Amendment is made after the Third Reading and a mistake takes place, your Lordships have no longer any power to put it right. Therefore we have made the rule—and it has been applied in my own period of membership of your Lordships' House very rigidly—that we will have no Amendments unless Notice has been given. It may be said that the fact that this Amendment has been printed is to some extent a compliance with the rule. Well, it is a compliance with part of the rule, but not with all of it, and it really is not sufficient, because the Amendment has not been in the hands of noble Lards so that they can consider it beforehand and attend your Lordships' House, if they think it is necessary to comment upon it.
As a matter of fact, in my own case, it was only by the kind intervention of a friend that I had the least idea there was going to be any Amendment of this kind moved on the Third Reading. I was in the country, and it was only by a hasty telephone message that I knew it was going to be moved. I will not tell again the story which I have often told in your Lordships' House of how, many years ago now, when a particular Government was in office, an Amendment was put in on the Third Reading without Notice against my protest, and within ten minutes of the Bill passing into law they found that the Amendment had been inserted in the wrong place. I will not detail what actually happened. There would have been—or there ought to have been—no means of putting it right after the mistake which had been made. Without reference altogether to the subject matter of the noble Lord's Amendment, I would invite your Lordships not to entertain it because sufficient Notice has not been given.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name
288
is practically to the same effect as that which I had placed on the Paper on Report but which, on the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, I deferred to Third Reading. If in my ignorance of the procedure of your Lordships' House I have not given sufficient Notice of the Amendment of course I must bow to the decision of the House; but I thought that having mentioned the matter on the Report Stage and having handed in the Amendment in time for it to be printed, the matter would be in order. If it is the view of your Lordships that the matter is out of order I do not propose to say more at this stage.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am bound to admit that the noble Marquess opposite has stated the rule of your Lordships' House with perfect accuracy, as there is no doubt he would, and has also stated very clearly the reason for it. If anything is put at the last moment into a Bill of which members of your Lordships' House had no Notice it would be unfair to them and to the expressed opinion of the House itself. I hope that the noble Lord is not in any way in error about what I stated to him the other day. I have looked at the actual words and what I stated to him is this, that the matter which he wanted to discuss could be equally discussed after the Third Reading and not at the Third Reading. I assumed in connection with that that he would take all the ordinary necessary steps to put himself in order. I do not wish to say anything more than that. Personally, I am sorry that the noble Lord has been deprived of this opportunity. The noble Marquess has stated the rule of the House quite accurately.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 55:
Application of Part IV and classification of public service vehicles.
(2) Public service vehicles shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act and the

289
regulations made thereunder, be divided into the following classes:—
(b) Express carriages; that is to say, motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares and for a journey or journeys to some one or other common destination specified beforehand, and not stopping to take up or set down passengers other than those taking the specified journey or journeys, and motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, where no fare is less than one shilling for a single journey or such greater sum as may be prescribed:
Provided that a motor vehicle adapted to carry less than six passengers shall not be deemed to be an express carriage by reason only that on special occasions it is used to carry passengers at separate fares.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in subsection (2) (b), after the first "fares," to insert "none of which are less than one shilling for a single journey or such greater sum as may be prescribed." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the three Amendments to this clause which stand in my name are all to the same purpose; that is, to prevent what are commonly called motor coaches running in competition with the motor omnibuses which are for ordinary local use on certain roads. As laid down in the clause at the moment there are two classes of motor coaches—those which run between previously advertised points and those which do not, have any fare less than one shilling. I feel that both these types should be combined into one and that the definition of a motor coach should be such a vehicle as only runs between specified points and also which has no fare of less than one shilling. I understand that the Ministry are in sympathy with this Amendment and I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 24, after ("fares") insert ("none of which are less than one shilling for a single journey or such greater sum as may be prescribed").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, this and the next two Amendments, as the noble Earl has said, are all connected together. If your Lordships look at Clause 55, you will find that it endeavours, in the paragraph that we are considering, to define "express carriages." The
290
first part of the definition is that they must carry passengers at separate fares to a common destination not stopping to take up or set down passengers other than those taking the specified journey. Then it goes on to say—
"and motor vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares, where no fare is less than one shilling …"
The object of the noble Earl is one with which the Minister of Transport is not out of sympathy, as I understand it; that is, to prevent that which is not a stage carriage competing unfairly with that which is a stage carriage and has to be subject to all the regulations. The clause is not quite satisfactory as it is drawn, but the result of the noble Lord's Amendments would really be impossible, because the three Amendments, if inserted in the Bill, would make it obligatory for every passenger to go to the extreme end of the journey before he was allowed to get off. For instance, a passenger going from London to Brighton who lived three miles on this side of Brighton would not be allowed to get off there, but would have to go on to Brighton. If the noble Earl, at this stage, would withdraw his Amendment, I will promise him that the form, of the clause will be reconsidered before Third Reading. We recognise it requires some amendment.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, by leaving out the words "or set down" the noble Earl's argument would be met. If he would consider that I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), before "an express carriage," to insert "a stage carriage or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is possible a carriage seating fewer than six passengers might be used to carry passengers at separate fares of less than a shilling on special occasions, and but for this Amendment it would then become a stage carriage.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 39, after the second ("be") insert ("a stage carriage or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), before "special," to insert "occasions of race meetings, public

291
gatherings and other like" The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to give some indication of what is meant by "special occasions." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 40, after ("on") insert ("occasions of race meetings, public gatherings and other like").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Constitution of traffic areas]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the two Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("the last preceding subsection") and insert ("this section.")
Page 42, line 33, leave out ("subsection (2) of").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Traffic Commissioners]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:—
"Where the Minister proposes to appoint a person to be Traffic Commissioner for any traffic area he shall, before making any appointment, require the person whom he proposes to appoint to declare whether he has any, and if so what, financial interest in any transport undertaking which carries passengers within the traffic area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to obviate any person being appointed a Commissioner who would be financially interested in any transport undertaking. I think this subsection will secure that the Minister shall know what interest he has, and therefore be able to form a judgment.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am very glad to see this Amendment down in the name of the noble Earl, but does it go quite far enough? Ought not the proposed person also to be made to disclose whether he has any financial interest in any undertaking which supplies or manufactures omnibuses, motor coaches, chars-a-bancs or trams? And ought he not also to give an undertaking not to acquire any interest in any of those undertakings after he takes
292
office, without leave of the Minister? In those circumstances will not the noble Earl consider this between now and Third Reading?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think, perhaps, the noble Viscount is right. I know another clause of this sort which does go further and of course it is clear that future interests may be as important as present interests. I will consider that point between now and Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsections:—
"( ) A person shall be disqualified for being a Commissioner if he is convicted, either on indictment or summarily, of any crime, and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine, or to any greater punishment, or is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors.
( ) If a Commissioner is absent from sittings of the Commissioners for more than six months consecutively, except for some reason approved by the Minister, he shall, on the expiration of those months, vacate his office.
( ) Where a Commissioner becomes disqualified for holding office, or vacates his office from absence or otherwise, the Minister shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as he thinks fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, where Commissioners and people of the like nature are appointed for a long term of years it is usual to have some means of getting rid of them. Under this Bill there are no such means; but there are under the Port of London Authority Act, and I have taken the liberty of adapting the words of that Act to suit the present Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 11, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Minister takes the view about this Amendment that it is not perhaps very happily worded. We recognise that it is taken from the Port of London Authority Act, but a member of the Port of London Authority is in rather a different position. He gets there by election as a representative. These Commissioners are going to occupy posi-

293
tions of great importance of a quasi-judicial nature, and it is not perhaps very polite to suggest to them that they are likely to be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour, nor even to suggest they are going to be bankrupt; but we do think that there ought to be perhaps some method, which is not at present provided, of getting rid of a Commissioner who is unsatisfactory. I am not sure that this Amendment by any means covers all the reasons which might make it eminently proper that a Commissioner should be got rid of. What we are prepared to do, if the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that, is to accept these words at the moment, but he must allow us to reconsider them before Third Reading, because I cannot help feeling they are perhaps a little insulting to the people who are proposed to be Commissioners.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Earl has taken the same exception to this Amendment as did my noble friend Lord Peel when I ventured to move a similar Amendment to the Electricity Bill. However, I am glad to hear that the Commissioners in this case are also going to be supermen and not as those on the Port of London Authority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61:
Public service vehicle licences.
(2) If any person causes or permits a public service vehicle to be used in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that, where in the case of a service of stage carriages no fare is less than threepence or such greater sum as may be prescribed, it shall not be an offence to use on that service a vehicle licensed as an express carriage if consent in writing to such use has been obtained from the Commissioners of each of the traffic areas in which the vehicle is so used.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the two Amendments in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 13, have out ("where")
Page 45, line 14, leave out from ("carriages") to ("it") in line 15.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after
294
"offence," to insert "in special circumstances." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that only in very exceptional cases should relaxation of the provisions of the Bill be allowed, and I put down this Amendment to be a guide to the Commissioners that it is only under special circumstances that the conditions of the Bill are to be relaxed.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 16, after ("offence") insert ("in special circumstances").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl's Amendment only expresses what is intended to be the practice and the guide of the Commissioners. I am not sure whether they are the most apt words, but I should be prepared to accept them now, subject to any reconsideration or modification.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 19, after ("so") insert ("to be").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Certificates of fitness]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the two Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 45, line 38, after ("or") insert ("fixed")
Page 45, line 42, after the third ("the") insert ("fixed").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 63:
Road service licences.
63.—(1) A person shall not use a vehicle or permit it to be used as a stage carriage or as an express carriage unless he is the holder of a road service licence issued under this Part of this Act or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such a licence.
(2) Every person applying for a road service licence or applying for the backing of such a licence shall submit to the Commissioners—

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

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

and the Commissioners shall not grant the licence unless they are satisfied that the

295
time tables and the fare tables and other arrangements are such as to secure that suitable services will be established and maintained, and that the provisions of Part I of this Act relating to the maximum speed of vehicles will not be contravened.
(3) A copy of every time table and of every fare table approved by the Commissioners under the last preceding subsection shall be carried and be available for inspection in every vehicle used on the service to which the time table relates.
(4) Subject to any regulations made by the Minister, there may be attached to a road service licence such conditions as the Commissioners may from time to time think fit for securing the establishment or maintenance of a suitable service of stage carriages or express carriages as the case may be, and for securing that the route to be followed shall be suitable and that the vehicles to be used shall in design, construction and equipment be suitable to the route, and for fixing the points along the route between which passengers may not be taken up or set down, and also for securing that—

(a) the conditions on which persons are employed in connection with the service shall not be such as to endanger the safety of the public or impair the efficiency of the service;

(b) the fares shall not be unreasonable;

(c) where desirable in the public interest, the fares shall be so fixed as to prevent wasteful competition with alternative forms of transport, if any, along the route or any part thereof, or in proximity thereto.

(5) If where an application has been made for a road service licence it is represented to the Commissioners by any person interested in or affected by the application that it is necessary or desirable in the public interest that the Commissioners should fix the minimum or maximum fares for any service which the applicant proposes to provide under the licence, the Commissioners may fix such fares and make it a condition of the licence that fares shall not be charged under or in excess of the minimum or maximum.
(6) The Commissioners in exercising their discretion to grant or to refuse a road service licence in respect of any route and their discretion to attach conditions to any such licence shall have regard to—

(a) the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed route are already adequately served;

(b) the extent to which the proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest;

(c) the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic, including the provision of adequate and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services, the provision of unremunerative services, and the co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport, including transport by rail;

and shall take into consideration any representations which may be made by local
296
authorities or other persons who are already providing transport facilities along or near to the route or any part thereof.
(7) A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order:
Provided that notwithstanding any restriction to the contrary, whether contained in this Act or in any other Act or in any order having the force of an Act or elsewhere, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant a road service licence in respect of any route or any part of a route to any person applying for such a licence, and it shall be lawful for that person to operate a service in accordance with the licence so granted to him.
(8) The Commissioners shall, on granting or backing a road service licence, send notice thereof to every chief officer of police and every local authority in whose district or area the service is to be operated and transmit to him and them particulars of the services to be provided under the licence.
(9) If any person uses a vehicle or permits it to be used in contravention of this section, or wilfully or negligently fails to comply with any of the conditions attached to his road service licence, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that failure to comply with any such conditions shall not be an offence if the alleged offender proves that he acted with the consent of the Commissioners for the traffic area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
(10) The Commissioners may from time to time vary in such manner as they think fit any condition attached to a road service licence.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (7), to leave out "but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically authorised by or under Part V of this Act or by or under any special Act or order." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be simpler if I moved this later on the new clause which the noble Earl will propose.
LORD ASKWITH, who had given Notice of an Amendment in the proviso to subsection (7), to insert "other than a route along which the person so applying is restricted by any such Act or order from running omnibuses in competition with any road transport service (whether tramway, trolley vehicle or omnibus) of any other person and where the road transport service which is protected by that restriction is being worked effi-

297
ciently"—said: My Lords, I would prefer to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, when he moves it and drop mine. His seems to me to meet the case.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the most convenient course would be, if both noble Lords would agree, that we should omit the present Clause 63 and then take the Amendments on the proposed new clause.
LORD ASKWITH: That would be perfectly agreeable to me.
EARL RUSSELL: Then I move to omit Clause 63.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 63.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert the following new clause:—
Road service licences.
"( ).—(1) A person shall not use a vehicle or permit it to be used as a stage carriage or as an express carriage unless he is the holder of a road service licence issued under this Part of this Act or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such a licence.
(2) The Commissioners shall not grant a road service licence in respect of any route unless they are satisfied that the provisions of Part I of this Act relating to the speed of motor vehicles will not be contravened, and in exercising their discretion to grant or to refuse a road service licence in respect of any routes and their discretion to attach conditions to any such licence shall have regard to the following matters:—

(a) the suitability of the routes on which a service may be provided under the licence;

(b) the extent, if any, to which the needs of the proposed routes or any of them are already adequately served;

(c) the extent to which the proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest;

(d) the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic (including the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services and the provision of unremunerative services), and the co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport, including transport by rail;

and take into consideration any representations which may be made by persons who are already providing transport facilities along or near to the routes or any part thereof or by any local authorities through whose areas the routes would pass.
(3) Subject to any regulations made by the Minister, the Commissioners may attach
298
to a road service licence such conditions as they may think fit with respect to the matters to which they are required to have regard under the preceding subsection and generally for securing the safety and convenience of the public, and in particular for securing that—

(a) the conditions on which persons are employed in connection with the service shall not be such as to endanger the safety of the public or impair the efficiency of the service;

(b) the fares shall not be unreasonable;

(c) where desirable in the public interest the fares shall be so fixed as to prevent wasteful competition with alternative forms of transport, if any, along the route or any part thereof, or in proximity thereto;

(d) copies of the time-table and fare-table shall be carried and be available for inspection in vehicles used on the service;

and the Commissioners may from time to time vary in such manner as they think fit any condition attached to a road service licence.
(4) Every person applying for a road service licence shall submit to the Commissioners—

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

(b) in any other case, particulars as to the frequency of the services and the times to be taken on the journeys included in those services.

(5) If where an application has been made for a road service licence it is represented to the Commissioners by any person interested in or affected by the application that it is necessary or desirable in the public interest that the Commissioners should fix the minimum or maximum fares for any service which the applicant proposes to provide under the licence, the Commissioners may fix such fares and make it a condition of the licence that fares shall not be charged under or in excess of the minimum or maximum:
Provided that where provision is made by any Act of Parliament for the fixing of fares or maximum fares in respect of any service or stage of any service, the Commissioners shall not have power to fix maximum fares in respect of that service or stage, nor to fix a minimum fare for any stage in excess of any fare or maximum fare for the time being fixed for that stage under any such Act.
(6) A road service licence in respect of any route shall be required notwithstanding that the provision of a service of stage carriages or express carriages is authorised by a special Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically so authorised:
Provided that notwithstanding any restrictions to the contrary, whether contained in this or any other Act, or other-

299
wise having the force of law, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant, under and in accordance with the provisions of this section, a road service licence in respect of any route or any part of a route to any person applying for such a licence, and it shall be lawful for that person to provide a service in accordance with the licence so granted to him.
(7) The Commissioners, on granting a road service licence, shall send notice thereof, including particulars of the services to be provided thereunder, to every chief officer of police and every local authority in whose district or area any such service is to be provided.
(8) If any person uses a vehicle or causes or permits it to be used in contravention of this section, or being the holder of a road service licence, wilfully or negligently fails to comply with any of the conditions attached thereto, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that failure to comply with any such conditions shall not be an offence if the alleged offender proves that he acted with the consent of the Commissioners for the traffic area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
(9) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of any county, borough, urban district or rural district."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause is practically the same as the old clause recast, except that it is in a better form and I think it contains a new proviso to subsection (5) to prevent any conflict of jurisdiction between the Commissioners and other authorities, who already have powers to fix minimum fares. I beg to move that this new clause be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there is one small point on which I should like to ask a question. Does the word "person" cover a company and a local authority?
EARL RUSSELL: Oh, yes, I think so.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: That is clear?
EARL RUSSELL: I think so. The word "person" in law covers both of them.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, may I ask whether the proviso in the original Bill is retained? In the original Clause 63 there is subsection (7) with a proviso which reads:—
"Provided that notwithstanding any restriction to the contrary, whether contained in this Act or in any other Act or in any order having the force of an Act or else-
300
where, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant a road service licence.…"
EARL RUSSELL: Yes. You will find it on page 6 of the Marshalled List of Amendments.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, the effect of which would be to leave out all words after "Parliament." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, I think it would be well if I were to speak on both Amendments as very much the same principle underlies both. The first Amendment I propose is to leave out the words after Parliament, that is to say to leave out the words "but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically so authorised." At first sight it might appear that this proviso would protect local authorities already having powers to run trams or omnibuses, but your Lordships must remember that many local authorities obtain power to run trams and omnibuses without the intention of doing so immediately. The reason for that is generally that there is some company running a perfectly efficient service at the moment, and a clause is usually inserted saying that the authorities shall not run trams or omnibuses on the route while the existing company is doing it so efficiently.
That applies also to my second Amendment to leave out the proviso. There are many sections in Private Acts of Parliament which give to companies the right to run omnibuses without any competition. In order to obtain these sections they have come to an agreement with their opponents, usually the local authority, that they shall run omnibuses without competition in return for certain services rendered. I feel that unless my Amendments are carried, the whole principle of legislating by Private Bills will be upset. People go to a great deal of trouble and expense, they come to Parliament and go before a Private Bill Committee which enquires very fully into the merits of the case. Both sides, as your Lordships are aware, argue the case before the Committee, and then they come to an agreement knowing very fully the facts of the case. It seems to me that it would be absolutely wrong if the whole of these arrangements were swept away by this Bill. It would bring Parlia-

301
ment into disrepute if we were to make such sweeping changes as are now proposed by this clause. I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment. I feel it is very important and I intend to trouble your Lordships with a, Division if the noble Earl is not prepared to accept the Amendment. The second Amendment is more or less the same as the first. It deals with provisos in certain Private Bills, and it is equally important, but I am prepared to accept the decision of your Lordships' House on the first Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In subsection (6) leave out ("but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically so authorised").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I support the Amendments of the noble Earl who has just sat down. If they are passed then I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment of which I have given Notice, as I am toll that those proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would be satisfactory to the Tramways and Light Railways Association, who have asked me to say a few words on the subject. I agree with the noble Earl that the proposed clause would in a very sweeping manner over-ride Acts of Parliament, the various ramifications of which it is very difficult to know. Power would be put into the hands of the Commissioners to sweep away a great deal of what has occurred in the past without any adequate opportunity being given for those affected to be heard. My Amendment is chiefly concerned with cases in which this overriding power is exercised where the road service is efficient, but if the whole of the subsection is struck out then I do not think my Amendment will be necessary.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I cannot help regarding this as an important matter, although at the same time I will do my lot best not to exaggerate. My noble friends who have already spoken have outlined the matter to your Lordships. I have here some of the cases in question. I do not want to quote them at length, but I would like to point out that certainly during the last eight years there have been a number of decisions by Committees of your Lordships' House and by Committees of the House of Commons. I
302
have four of the sections here and they show that the decisions, although generally the same in principle, have not always been the same in detail. There is a long section in the Lowestoft Corporation Act, 1920, there was a section in the South Shields Corporation Act, 1921, and two sections in the Wigan Corporation Act, 1921. Those sections show that these matters have not been decided capriciously. They embody settlements made by Parliament knowing all the facts. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the decisions have been arrived at generally contrary to the advice of the Ministry of Transport. At all events, I do not remember a case—I have not looked up all the cases, but I do not remember a case—in which they have given a decision of this kind enthusiastic support in advance.
But your Lordships will see how this will work. It means that every decision come to by Parliament during years past is to be subject to the revision of these officials—important people, but still somewhat subordinate people when we compare them with their chiefs reigning over them at the Ministry of Transport. I would like in this connection, because it is, I think, material, to remind your Lordships in a few sentences, but a little more in detail, of the Oxford case which was quoted by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in Committee. The story of what happened in Oxford is this. About twenty years ago a company purchased the tramways in Oxford from the Corporation for £7,000. In 1914 they came to an agreement with the Corporation by which omnibuses were substituted for tramways, subject to a rent which, I think, was then fixed at £200 quarterly, or £800 a year. I think that that sum has since been increased. In return, as is shown in the agreement scheduled to the Act, the Company were given the monopoly of the routes concerned—the same monopoly as they would have had in the case of tramways. The rates were fixed by the Act, but they were afterwards raised by the Act of 1921 and I think the matter was again before Parliament in 1928.
Here is a definite arrangement, made for consideration of pay, and it does seem to me a very far-reaching proposal if that arrangement is to be of no value

303
at all because it is to be made subject to consideration by these new officials, who have complete powers, under the clause as I read it, to override it. I know that Parliament is never obstinate in refusing to hear further arguments in any case that it has decided, but it does seem to me to be rather a large order to lay down a general principle that every decision which has been come to by Parliament at any time is to be subject to a review in this way by these non-legislative gentlemen. There may be a strong public case making it essential that this proposal should be put through, but I have not heard that public case yet. I should be very interested to hear it, but until I do hear it I certainly feel inclined to support my noble friend behind me who moved this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the first Amendment is to remove the words "but a licence shall not be refused if the route is specifically so authorised." That is to say, the Commissioner is instructed that it will be his duty to give a licence to any person who has been specifically authorised by Statute to have a licence. He is instructed to have regard to these Private Acts of Parliament of which noble Lords have been speaking. I cannot understand their argument. I am prepared to adopt that which they have said on this point and, indeed, that which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has said, that Private Acts of Parliament that have been obtained after argument before Committees ought to have some regard paid to them. These words which the noble Earl is now proposing to omit are precisely those which tell the Commissioner that he is to pay some regard to those Acts and that, where Parliament has granted not only power to run omnibuses but power to run omnibuses on a particular route to a particular authority, the power granted by Parliament is to be respected by the Commissioner and he is not to refuse the licence.
All the arguments that noble Lords used seem to me to go to support that. They were, perhaps relevant to the second Amendment, which is rather different and which I would rather discuss separately when we come to it. The two Amendments do not really hang together at all. In fact, you might say that they are opposite principles. The first Amendment
304
proposes that complete disregard should be had to these Private Acts of Parliament and to these special routes, allocated to the promoters of those Acts, who have obtained them by Bills; and the second Amendment proposes that, in spite of the proposal of the Government that these provisions in the Acts should not override the consideration of the Commissioner, the Private Act of Parliament is to be of full force and the Commissioner is to have no power to interfere with it. They are therefore arguing totally opposite points, and I will not argue both questions at once. I prefer to limit myself to the first Amendment, which definitely says that, no matter what the Act of Parliament says, no matter whether the Committee of your Lordships' House or of another place has given somebody a specific route to work upon, the Commissioner is to disregard it and he is not to be bound to have a licence from the Commissioner.
All that we are suggesting in this clause is that a licence shall not be refused for a route that has been specifically authorised by Parliament. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable proposal, and one that I am sure that the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, would support. I cannot take the two Amendments together because they are different, but on that point I suggest to your Lordships, when these matters have been argued and, at some expense, the right to a particular route has been obtained, or at any rate the power to run upon that route, not that it should be a monopoly, not that there should be an unreasonable right maintained to the person who has obtained that route or anything of that sort, but that the Commissioner should at any rate be told that, as these people got that particular route from Parliament, the least he can do is to give the licence to ride on it. I am afraid that the Government must resist this Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, as I tried to explain, though I think I must have failed, the noble Earl must know that, when permission is given to run on certain routes, that permission is very often subject to conditions. The local authority is not able to run omnibuses or trams like a private person on any route. It has to obtain permission from Parliament and, when it has got per-

305
mission from Parliament to run its vehicles on certain routes, it is very often convenient to apply for leave to run vehicles on certain other routes where another company is at the moment running a service. Accordingly in many Acts of Parliament, I am informed, local authorities are given power to run vehicles on certain routes where, as I say, another body has the right of doing so, but they promise not to take that power upon themselves while that body is maintaining an efficient service. I think it would be manifestly unfair that, where that proviso has been inserted in an Act, the Commissioner should have power to override a proviso inserted by Parliament—the case is exactly the same under this Amendment as under the other—giving an authority power to run their tramways in spite of the agreement contained in a Private Act. I hope that the noble Earl understands what I mean.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think that the discussion which we are engaged upon is ranging round a question of principle, and I know that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is well aware that there is great apprehension amongst various companies throughout the country, some of which have been specified by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, in relation to the authority which the Commissioners will exercise over what they regard as a right consecrated to them by Act of Parliament. If the noble Earl will consider the matter from that point of view, I think that this will satisfy the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. I feel that there is no necessity for me to go into specific instances, with which the noble Earl is familiar, of cases where Parliament has sanctioned the establishment of services which amount to a monopoly and, while these monopolies, or practical monopolies, have been opposed by county councils, they have been maintained for these companies by this House and in another place.
What my noble friend is proposing in his Amendment is that these rights, which Parliament has maintained, should not be under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners to do as they think best in relation to them. That is really what we are asking the noble Earl, and I am quite sure that if the Amendment does not fulfil the conditions which the noble Earl wishes to bring forward he
306
could put in words to satisfy what we are asking. I am inclined to think, however, that the noble Earl opposite is not in entire agreement with us in regard to these particular cases, and that he is quite willing to leave it to the Commissioners to exercise their jurisdiction in these matters, with the safeguard of saying that the Commissioners have before them the facts that I have been endeavouring in a very short space of time to put before your Lordships. I think that we on this side of the House want something more than that, and that these companies, with rights and powers which they believe are theirs by Acts of Parliament, should not be subject to the control of Commissioners. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to meet us on this point.
EARL RUSSELL: With your Lordships' permission I want to say one word more. The speech of the noble Marquess related to the second Amendment, and not to the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. I do not quite understand Lord Cranbrook. Do I understand him to say that a local authority obtains from Parliament power to run, not tramways but omnibuses upon a certain route, and at the same time pledges itself in certain circumstances not to exercise that power? If I understood him correctly to say that, then these words will not do any harm, because the giving of such a pledge obviously would prevent the local authority from applying for a road licence. All these words do is to say that where a local authority, or any other statutory body, has got a right from Parliament to run a motor omnibus upon a particular route, the Traffic Commissioner shall recognise that right to the extent of not refusing a road licence. It does not say that he is to grant them an exclusive licence, or as many licences as they ask for; but it does say that in view of the fact that they have obtained powers from Parliament he is not to meet them with simply a blank refusal. He is to say: "You are that much to the good, as compared with anybody else, and it is my duty to give you a road licence for any vehicle which I consider suitable having regard to the state If the road."
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am not quite clear that I understand the controversy, but it appears to me it will

307
resolve itself into this. There are certain bodies, or certain councils it may be, who possess at the present moment certain rights defined and confirmed by Private Acts of Parliament, and what I gather from what is said on this side is that those rights will be now subject to some modification by the procedure of these Commissioners. If that is so it does appear to me to be rather hard. It does not seem to me to be right that statutory powers given to any body should be capable of modification by Commissioners set up under another Act.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: In view of the assurance given by the noble Earl I will withdraw my first Amendment now, on the understanding that I may raise it again on the Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in subsection (6), to leave out the proviso. The noble Earl said: Your Lordships have discussed this rather fully, and I beg formally to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Subsection (6), lines 7 to 15, leave out the proviso.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: This second Amendment is also opposed, and I want to call your Lordships' attention to what it means. The proviso says that "notwithstanding any restrictions to the contrary, whether contained in this or any other Act"—including these Private Acts of Parliament—it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to grant a road service licence. Now here we do propose to disregard some of the provisions of these Private Acts. As I have said, the argument here is exactly the contrary. I could not have a better example than that of Oxford, which the Lord Chairman gave to your Lordships. The City of Oxford entered into a bargain which was of a rather peculiar character. In effect the bargain was this. The Council of the City of Oxford said to a private omnibus company: "We will exercise our licensing powers in such a way as to refuse a licence to any competitor and only give a licence to you." That bargain having been sanctioned by Parliament it would not, I think, be proper to describe it as an improper bargain, because we must assume that
308
everything that Parliament sanctions is right. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite always assume that.
It is well known that councils who have these licensing powers are supposed to act judicially, and to consider each application for a licence on its merits. When they go and barter away their judicial discretion for some £800—now increased to £1,500—a year, and other considerations from the omnibus company, it does appear to us that the bargain is not necessarily in the public interest. In the particular case of Oxford there is a very strong case for the actual terms of the bargain made, and that is, no doubt, what induced Parliament to sanction it. The City of Oxford is free from a large number of unnecessary competing omnibuses. I think we are all agreed that regulated competition is what we want to aim at and not wild competition. They have succeeded in freeing the City from a large number of rival and unnecessary omnibuses, and in limiting the service to one company, by which they are paid a considerable sum of money for forgoing their judicial discretion. That seems to us a bargain which I should be prepared to describe as "improper" if Parliament had not assented to it.
There are other cases not quite so obvious as the Oxford case. We are proposing under this Part of the Bill, and the Traffic Commission, to get the whole of the motor services in this country into the hands of the Traffic Commissioners, so that all the services of the country shall be regulated in accordance with the requirements of traffic, and with the object of producing suitable regulated competition, providing a service which is not redundant but which is adequate, and leading in many cases, as your Lordships probably know, to the provision of unremunerative services as part of the consideration for remunerative services. If you are going to take out a large class of case, which as I think the Lord Chairman said went back to 1920—my information is that there have been thirteen cases in the last two years—if you take the whole of that sort of case away from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners it is obvious that you leave them without that general power of regulation which we think is so important that they ought not to be

309
deprived of it. It is perfectly clear, I think, that the Commissioners would have regard—and the intention is that they should have regard—to any reasonable conditions and arrangements that exist. And of course it is perfectly clear that they will give preference to those who now occupy the roads, who, although they have no legal right or franchise, have obviously a moral and equitable right to be continued in the services which they are giving, so long as those services are satisfactory.
But I do not conceal from your Lordships that Oxford will lose £1,500 a year under this, because Oxford will no longer have the consideration to give. Your Lordships should also remember that the bargain which Oxford made cannot apply beyond the borough boundary, and any number of motor omnibuses that think it worth while to run up to the borough boundary and then have the passengers taken by this favoured company can do so. It is a question really of the public interest as against the private interest. These people have obtained these powers under Private Acts of Parliament when there was no such general control of the traffic of the country. Parliament has given them these powers, and I dare say in many cases not at all improperly, because it appeared to be the best bargain that could be made for that particular locality at that particular moment. But you cannot have a comprehensive system of control of traffic throughout the country unless you put those powers in the melting pot and give the Commissioner discretion to deal with them as he thinks fit, having regard, as he of course always would have regard, to what has been done in the past and to what the moral rights of the parties concerned are.
We therefore desire definitely that, notwithstanding these restrictions or these provisions, the Commissioner may grant such licences as he thinks fit, and unless he has that general and over-riding power we cannot see how you can obtain what we think far more important than these local bargains, and that is a general and universal control of the motor omnibus traffic of the country. It is a case of the public necessity against the particular interest, and our view is that the public interest is more important and ought to prevail. For that reason, we cannot accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, we have all admired the skill with which the noble Earl has conducted this Bill, but I think we must all agree that in the last speech he has made he has laid down a new proposition, and that is that the Commissioners are to over-ride Acts of Parliament. I cannot think your Lordships will agree to that without more discussion than we have had. The noble Earl says that these Commissioners are practically to disregard powers which have been given by Acts of Parliament. He tells us that those powers have been given under different conditions, but I am not sure really that he is quite accurate in saying that, because the specific organisations which have been referred to have followed the evolution of the time and have spent a great deal of money in doing so. It seems very hard that when they have spent large sums of money in acquiring what amounts to a monopoly, and have kept abreast of the times and furnished a service which has been satisfactory, they should be told now that they are at the mercy of Commissioners. I think I am right in saying that the particular services in question are local services, and the owners are fully cognisant of the requirements of those localities, and do not interfere with the through services. If that is so, I should be very sorry indeed if it were laid down in this Bill that an entirely new system of government in this country should be put into a Road Traffic Bill, and that what has been enacted by Parliament with all the facts of the case before it should be set aside. I therefore hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment, and, if so, I shall go into the Lobby with him.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, this proviso appears to me to involve a novel and most dangerous principle. The plain reading of it is that it gives the Commissioners absolute power in their discretion to over-ride provisions in Acts of Parliament. The noble Earl rather suggests that this power, if granted, will only be used in very special cases, for instance in the Oxford case, where he thinks that Parliament sanctioned an improper bargain. Even if that were so, I think it would be a most improper power to give the Commissioners. But the clause does not rest there, because it says in effect that whenever the Commissioners think fit they may over-ride

311
the provisions in Private Acts, and grant licences where the Private Acts have forbidden such licences to be granted. If the noble Earl thinks that such a power ought to be given to the Commissioners, it ought to be safeguarded most carefully. Any such power should require the sanction of an Order in Council or something of that sort. But
Resolved in the negative and Amendment to the Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 64 [Drivers' and conductors' licences]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the first two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 4, after ("(2)") insert: ("A person shall be disqualified for obtaining")
Page 50, line 5, leave out ("shall not be granted unless the applicant") and insert ("unless he").—(Earl Russell.)
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (3), to insert:—
"(4) A licence to drive or act as conductor of a public service vehicle may at any time be suspended or revoked by the Commissioners by whom it was granted upon the ground that, by reason of his conduct or physical disability, the holder is not a fit person to hold such a licence."
The noble Earl said: MY Lords, this is little more than drafting. It is to pro-
312
simply to give power to over-ride Acts of Parliament appears to me to be contrary to all traditions, and cannot be justified by any consideration of what the noble Earl called public necessity.
On Question, Whether the proviso shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents,36.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Passfield, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Russell, E.

Marks, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Knutsford, V.

Hayter, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Novar, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Lamington, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Alvingham, L.

Leigh, L.

Lucan, E.

Askwith, L. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Morton, E.

Auckland, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Stanhope, E.

Carson, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Shandon, L.

Allendale, V.

Danesfort, L.

Sinclair, L.

Hood, V.

Dynevor, L.

Swaythling, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Elphinstone, L.

Templemore, L.

Erskine, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

vide power for revoking the licence of a driver or a conductor in proper circumstances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67:
Validity of licences in other areas and backing of licences.
(2) The Commissioners of any traffic area, on backing a road service licence, may as respects their area impose any condition which they might have imposed on granting the licence, and all the provisions of this Part of this Act as to the granting of road service licences shall apply to the backing of road service licences.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after the second "licence," to insert "or vary any condition attached to the licence by the Commissioners by whom the licence was granted"; before "the granting of" to insert "applications for road service licences and the granting, refusal, suspension or revoking of such licences and matters connected therewith"; and to leave out "the granting of road service licences." The noble

313
Earl said: My Lords, the object of these three Amendments is to make it clear that the Commissioners have exactly the same powers as to attaching conditions as to suspension, revocation and so on in connection with the backing of road service licences as with the original grant of a licence. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 23, after ("licence") insert ("or vary any condition attached to the licence by the Commissioners by whom the licence was granted")
Page 51, line 24, after ("to") insert ("applications for road service licences and the granting, refusal, suspension or revocation of such licences and matters connected therewith")
Page 51, line 24, leave out ("the granting of road service licences").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 [Records of licences]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 13, leave out ("officer") and insert ("person").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73:
Regulation of conduct of passengers.
73.—(1) The Minister may make regulations generally as to the conduct of passengers in public service vehicles and any such regulations may in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision—
(a) authorise the removal from a public service vehicle of any person infringing the regulations by any police constable or by the driver or conductor of the vehicle;
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection 1 (a), to leave out "any police constable or by," and, after "vehicle," to insert "or on the request; of the driver or conductor by any police constable." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two Amendments provide that a police constable should only act at the request of a driver or conductor. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 1, leave out ("any police constable or by")
Page 54, line 2, after ("vehicle") insert ("or on the request of the driver or conductor by any police constable").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 75:
Appointment of officers.
75.—(1) For the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the certification of fitness of vehicles, the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, appoint such officers (in this Part of this Act referred to as certifying officers) as he thinks fit, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to the examination of vehicles, the issue of certificates of fitness and otherwise, as the Minister may require.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after the first "officers," to insert "being experienced qualified engineers." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is obvious, I think. It is merely to try to ensure that those charged with the duty of inspecting public service vehicles of all sorts shall be properly qualified engineers. I do not know whether the Minister is able to accept it or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 7, after ("officers") insert ("being experienced qualified engineers").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this clause gives power to the Minister to appoint officers both as certifying and as public vehicle examiners. The noble Earl has an Amendment here and a subsequent Amendment on the same point. I think that the Minister does not really require direction as to whom he is to appoint. He is not in the least likely to appoint inexperienced or unqualified persons, and these words are unnecessary.
EARL HOWE: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Appeals to courts of summary jurisdiction]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords. The first Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 38, after ("the") insert ("holder of or an").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 41, after ("grant") insert ("or by the suspension or revocation of"). —(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Salaries and expenses]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 41, leave out ("the") and insert ("this").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Accounts and audit]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, these two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 58, line 2, leave out ("books of")
Page 58, line 2, leave out the second ("books") and insert ("records").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(2) All accounts kept under this section shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of Section three of the Roads Act, 1920, be deemed to be part of the account of the Road Fund which under that subsection is to be prepared by the Minister."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new subsection as to the keeping of accounts is to ensure that the accounts of the Commissioners shall be subject to audit by the Controller and Auditor General. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81:
Stands and stopping places.
81.—(1) A local authority may make orders for determining the roads which may be used by public service vehicles in the area or in any part of the area of the authority and for fixing stands and stopping places for public service vehicles and as to the manner of using such stands and stopping places.
(8) Nothing in this section shall empower any local authority to make any order under this section with respect to a stand, the site of which is owned by a railway company, in any railway station or in any yard adjoining or connected therewith without the consent of the railway company.
(9) In this section the expression "stopping places" means the points at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers, and in subsection (1) of this section the expression "local authority" means the council of a county or county borough or the council of any urban district having a population according to the last census for the time being of over twenty thousand, and the council of any other urban district or of any rural district which the Minister may by order declare to be a local authority for the purposes of this section.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "roads which may" and insert "highways which may or may not". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has given Notice of an Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 7, leave out ("roads which may") and insert ("highways which may or may not").—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "may or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is, I think, a rather new principle introduced here. At the moment every subject has the right to use the King's highway, and I feel that it would be very much fairer if local authorities had to lay down which roads may not be used. I do not think it can be suggested that motor omnibus companies are going to use all the small roads entirely. It would not pay them to do so; but occasions must arise when they may have to use them in consideration of the condition of traffic and it would be better, I think, if the local authorities had to prove before the Commissioners which roads should not be used, instead of being able to lay down merely which roads should be used. I believe that for some time the expression "may not" has been used in Private Acts of Parliament. There is more or less a precedent for using "may not" in Private Acts and I feel that it would be better if the words were used here.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out ("may or").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not think this Amendment serves any

317
possible useful purpose. The noble Earl seems to think that it makes some difference to the meaning of the clause, but in fact it does not. I believe he said something about the local authority proving before the Commissioners which roads they might close; but the effect is this. They may make orders, as it stood in the Bill originally, for determining the roads which may be used by public vehicles. Now we say the highways which may or may not be used. Let us suppose there are eighty roads in a town. There are two possible ways of arranging which roads public service vehicles may use. One way is to enumerate six highways which they may use, the assumption being that the other seventy-four may not be used by them. It is the other way that the noble Earl wishes to make essential. He wants to have put in the list all the seventy-four highways that they may not use. Administratively that would be very inconvenient and in fact impossible. There is no point in publishing a long list when a short list would do, and the actual effect of the legislation suggested by the noble Earl is nil. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. From the administrative point of view it would be very inconvenient.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, surely the public have a right to use all roads, and if they are to be excluded from some roads they should, be excluded from the fewer number, not from the larger. Therefore it would be much fairer for the authorities to be able to say which roads may not be used. As it is you are giving the authorities power to say all these roads may be used. We want to know what may not be used; that would be a very much smaller number than those that may be used. We do not want to give the authorities power to say: "You may use these roads," but only to give them power to exclude roads which may not be used.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount is really mistaken. It is not a case of the roads being used by the public, it is a case of roads being used by public service vehicles, which is a different thing. Public service vehicles are very large and there are some roads—indeed the majority of roads—which it would be most inconvenient for them to use, and
318
it would be inconvenient also to a town if you required it to set out a schedule of all the roads which these public service vehicles shall not use. Take Leicester for example. That town would have to publish an enormous schedule and it is much easier to specify those roads suitable for public service which public service vehicles may use. Such a schedule could be added to if on proper representation it was thought right to do so. It is a matter of administrative inconvenience.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "fixing," to insert "thereon." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment, my Lords.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 9, after ("fixing") insert ("thereon").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is no longer necessary in view of the Amendment in Clause 81.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 12, leave out subsection (8).—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (9), to leave out all words after the second "means" and to insert "as regards a, county borough or an urban district having a population according to the last census for the time being of over twenty thousand, and any other urban or any rural district the council of which the Minister may by order declare to be a local authority for the purposes of this section, the council of the borough or district, and as regards any other area the council of the county." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to secure there shall be no overlapping of authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 22, leave out from ("means") to end of clause and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Returns to be made by holders of road service licences.
82.—(1) It shall he the duty of the holder of a road service licence to keep such records and to make to the Minister such returns as the Minister may prescribe for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(2) If the holder of any such licence fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day luring which the offence continues.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "It shall be the duty of" and to insert "any person carrying on the business of operating public service vehicles to keep such accounts and records in relation thereto and to make to the Minister such financial and statistical returns, and in such manner and at such times, as the Minister may from time to time require." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment sets out in a more convenient form the provisions as to the Minister's power of submission of accounts and returns. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 29, leave out from the first ("of") to end of line 32, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendment, in subsection (2), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 33, leave out ("the holder of any such licence") and Insert ("any person").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85:
General power of making regulations.
85. The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make regulations with respect to any of the following matters—
(h) the determination of the number of passengers a vehicle is adapted to carry and for regulating the number of persons to be carried therein and the manner in which such number is to be shown thereon;
320
(i) the securing of the safe custody and re-delivery of any property accidentally left in a public service vehicle and fixing the charges made in respect thereof;
and different regulations may be made as respects different classes or descriptions of public service vehicles, and as respects the same class and description of public service vehicles in different circumstances.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the first three Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 61, line 13, after ("a") insert ("public service")
Page 61, line 14, leave out ("for regulating")
Page 61, line 15, leave out from ("number") to end of line 17 and insert ("who may be carried").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to paragraph (h): "(i) the carriage of luggage and goods on public service vehicles." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Minister will undoubtedly require to make regulations about keeping gangways free from luggage and things of that sort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 17, after ("thereon") insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after paragraph (i), to insert: "(k) the equipment to be carried by public service vehicles." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this relates to regulations concerning equipment such as jacks and fire extinguishers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 21, after ("thereof") insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92:
Application to Scotland.
92. This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The expression "borough" shall mean a large burgh as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929:

(b) Section seventy-seven shall have effect with the substitution for an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction of an appeal to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the applicant resides:

(c) The local authority for the purpose of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section eighty-one shall be in a burgh the magistrates of the burgh, and in a county the county council:

321

(d) References to Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, shall be construed as references to Section one hundred of this Act.

EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a), before "borough," to insert "county." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is for the purpose of applying the Act to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 6, after ("expression") insert ("county").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after the first "The" in paragraph (c), to insert "expression 'local authority' means a county or town council provided that the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is for the same purpose as the last Amendment, and so is the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 13, after the first ("The") insert ("expression 'Local authority' means a county or town council provided that the").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 17, leave out paragraph (d). —(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93:
Provisions as to regulations.
93.—(1) Before any regulations are made under this Act they shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such regulations shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree but upon such approval being given the Minister or the Commissioners by whom the regulations are proposed to be made may make the regulations in the form in which they have been so approved and the regulations on being so made shall be of full force and effect.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:—
"(1) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this deals with the regulation-making power and proposes to omit the subsection as printed in the Bill in order to insert the subsection as printed on the Order Paper. This is the more usual form of regulation-making power and this covers all regulations in the Bill with the exception of the one on the highway code. The Amendiment as put into the Bill on Committee stage providing for a draft with, or without, modification is really quite unsuitable, and I hope your Lordships will now see your way to restore the more usual form of clause. The regulations of the Ministry of Transport are very numerous and a vast majority of them deal with very small matters. They also deal, many of them, with matters which are highly technical in 'which Parliament could not take a very active interest, but if there is an active interest in any regulations then, of course, the matter can be raised by moving to annul them. We think this proposal will give Parliament sufficient protection. I have consulted the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition who, I am sorry, is not here, but I hope I satisfied him. I am not entitled to say that I did, but I hope I did.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I did not understand the allusion to the highway code. If I understand the noble Earl aright, the words he is now using do not affect regulations under the highway code. Can he explain that?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I ant sorry I was not clear. What I meant was that this regulation does not apply to the highway code. The highway code is to have a special regulation-making power of its own which is to provide for the affirmative Resolution. It is to have a separate and more stringent regulation-making power. This is the ordinary form of regulation-making power for ordinary regulations made by other Departments.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, suppose Parliament wishes to make some alterations in the regulations—which is quite possible—let us assume they are alterations for the better. According to the existing clause that can be done, and,

323
if both Houses agree to those alterations, the regulations so altered become law. According to the clause of the noble Earl there is no power to alter the regulations at all. Both Houses of Parliament have to take them and either reject them in toto or accept them in toto. There is no power to make modifications. Is it not desirable that there should be power to make modifications Suppose those modifications are necessary, it would be undesirable to reject the whole regulations on account of the necessary modifications. Could the noble Earl consider that and tell me whether it would not be possible to have the clause in such a form that both Houses could make the necessary modifications if any?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is not present, I take it that this clause is being inserted in consultation with him.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, but I am not entitled to say he approves of it. Re told me he would tell me when we came to it, but unfortunately he is not here.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not in a position to tell the noble Earl whether the noble Marquess approves, and I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, which seemed to indicate definitely that while modifications are dealt with in an earlier clause of the Bill that provision does not exist in the new clause which is now proposed for the consideration of your Lordships' House. I do not know whether that is in accordance with something which the noble Earl knows but which I do not know.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am very anxious not to say anything in the absence of the noble Marquess which would not be perfectly fair, but I think I may go so far as to say, and in doing that I think I am not going beyond anything the noble Marquess would be willing to say, that there are objections to this power of modification by Parliament. There are obvious objections and I am rather astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, should suggest it being done. It would be an extraordinarily unusual power in the first place, and in the second place, supposing the two Houses made different modifi-
324
cations there is no machinery by which the two Houses could be brought together in order to get the modifications agreed upon. There is no such procedure as in the case of Amendments to a Bill. Amendment A might be made by the House of Lords, and Amendment B by the House of Commons, and you would not know where you were at the end of it. There would be no provision for any identical set of regulations being approved by both Houses.
Lord Danesfort seemed to think that Parliament might be extremely useful in these matters. Parliament would be useful in preventing injustice being done to anyone, or in preventing an excess of jurisdiction, but as far as the matter of the regulations is concerned in my opinion there could be nothing less fruitful than discussion by Parliament. Regulations as to the construction of motor cars are highly technical matters. What would happen in practice would be that if the regulations are in some way defective, or appear to be so, a Motion in either House of Parliament for an annulment would no doubt be made and carried. The Minister, influenced by the discussion, would then proceed to lay !egulations which would meet with the approval of Parliament. That is the way the thing would be done. Parliament still retains full control under the proposal which is now made, but the suggestion that regulations should be modified by Parliament is really an impracticable suggestion and is quite contrary to precedent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"Before making regulations under this Act the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this originally appeared in Clause 29 relating to regulations under Part I of the Act. It is now proposed to insert it here to make it applicable to all regulations made under the Act. I think that should satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because in the matter of all regulations the Minister will consult representative people before making regula-

325
tions, and that, of course, will be another guarantee of the suitability of the regulations.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94:
Forgery, &c. of licences.
94. If any person forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, or, with intent to deceive, alters or uses any licence under any Part of this Act, or with intent to deceive, lends any such licence or allows it to be used by any other person, or for the purpose of obtaining the grant of any such licence to himself or any other person, knowingly makes any false statement, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 94, and insert the following new clause:—
Forgery, &c., of licences and certificates.
"( ).—(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 licence under any Part of this Act or a certificate of insurance or certificate of security within the meaning of Part II of this Act: or

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a licence or 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 imprison ment and fine.

(2) If any person for the purpose of obtaining the grant of any licence to himself or any other person knowingly makes any false statement, or for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or of a certificate of security under Part II of this Act makes any false statement or withholds arty material information, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(3) 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
326
for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(4) If any police constable has reasonable cause to believe that any licence or certificate of insurance or certificate of security produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act by the driver of a motor vehicle is a document in relation to which an offence under this section -has been committed, he may seize the document, and when any document is seized under this section, the person from whom it was taken shall, unless previously charged with an offence under this section, be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require.
(5) In this section the expressions 'certificate of insurance' and 'certificate of security' include any document issued under regulations made by the Minister in pursuance of his power under Part II of this Act to prescribe evidence which may be produced in lieu of a certificate of insurance or a certificate of security."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause deals with forgery and it combines Clauses 37 and 94, both of which dealt with forgery in the Bill as originally drafted. This new clause also provides that a police constable may seize a document which he suspects of being a forgery. That is obviously proper because otherwise the document would not be available when it was wanted. I think there is nothing further that I need say because, although this is a long Amendment, it really does not amount to anything more than a question of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 94 and insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Prosecutions and penalties for offences]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that imprisonment cannot be imposed on a first conviction.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("on summary conviction in respect of each") and insert ("in the case of the first").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 22, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Application of fives and fees under Part 1]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my first Amendment is to secure that all fines in respect of offences under this Act shall be dealt with in the mime manner and go to the Road Fund.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 17, leave out ("Part I of"). —(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is consequential on the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 20, leave out ("that Part") and insert ("Part I of this Act").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Special provisions as to Scotland]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment and the next two Amendments are for the purpose of' applying this Bill to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 11, leave out from ("the") to ("or") in line 12, and insert ("purpose of the payment of the consideration for a transfer under Section fifty of this Act").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
Page 69, line 21, leave out ("thirty-seven and section").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"(6) Any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or incites any other person to commit an offence against this Act shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first mentioned offence, provided that any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any person employed by him to drive, or subject to his orders in driving a motor vehicle on a road, to commit an offence against Section ten of this Act, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment for the
328
purposes of Scotland. It is consequential on the Amendment made in subsection (5) of Clause 10 because that subsection as it now stands is inappropriate to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Power to provide parking places in Scotland]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of subsection (7), to insert:—
"Provided that where the local authority provides a parking place for the use of, or which may be used by, public service vehicles, the local authority may if it thinks fit by order declare that this subsection shall not apply to public service vehicles either absolutely or to such extent as may be specified in the order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is also for the purposes of Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 101:
Interpretation.
101.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Owner" in relation to any vehicle includes a person having the use of a vehicle under a hiring or a hire-purchase agreement:
(2) Parts I and III of this Act, other than the section of this Act making provision with respect to extraordinary traffic, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown, and in the case of any such vehicle the person whom the department in whose service the vehicle is used names as the person actually responsible shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the person who causes in permits the vehicle to be on any road:
Provided that—

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

329

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

EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the definition of "owner", to leave out all words after "'owner' in relation to" and to insert "a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement or hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 11, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 13, and insert ("a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement or hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to omit the proviso and after "Provided that," to insert:—
"the provisions of this Act which respectively—

(a) impose restrictions on persons under twenty-one years with respect to the driving of heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors or heavy motors cars;

(b) regulate the number of trailers which may be drawn by motor vehicles;

(c) limit the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty;

shall not apply in the case of motor vehicles used for naval, military or Air Force purposes while being driven by persons for the time being subject to the orders of any member of the armed forces of the Crown, and the Minister may by regulations, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, vary in relation to any such vehicles as aforesaid while being driven as aforesaid the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a re-drafting of the provisions with regard to the exemption of naval, military or Air Force vehicles. The words "while being driven by persons for the time being subject to the orders of any member of the armed forces of the Crown" cover Territorials and contractors' vehicles on mancœuvres, and so on. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was anxious about the matter. I am told that it now satisfies everybody except the stores
330
branch of the Admiralty who appear not to be included. I do not know whether we can find words for them.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 11, leave out from ("that") to end of clause, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) to leave out "restriction imposed by this Act on persons under twenty-one years with respect to the driving of heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors or heavy motor cars, and the". The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the age limit for Government drivers. I am not so much concerned about the drivers of the armed forces of the Crown, in the Navy, Army or Air Force. Those I am concerned about are the drivers of such vehicles as those which belong to the Stationery Office, for instance, or to the Stores branch of the Admiralty which the noble Earl just mentioned. There is a further point relating to Post Office drivers. At present I believe these men are employed by civilian contractors who work under the Post Office, but I am not sure whether the clause as it stands would embrace those drivers—whether they are, in fact, technically in the service of the Crown within the meaning of the Act. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us about that. Even if they are not in the service of the Crown at present, it is possible that some Minister, perhaps belonging to the Party to which the noble Earl belongs, may one day decide that the State shall take over all the. Post Office vans, of which there are many thousands scattered all over the country. This is a very serious proposition, and I think that in that case these vehicles ought to be subjected to the same age limit for drivers as civilian vehicles are. I do not wish to hamper in any way, the Navy, Army or Air Force, but I think that civilian drivers in the Government service ought to come under the ordinary provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 3, leave out from ("the") to ("provisions") in line 7.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has moved his Amendment to the words as printed in the Bill. He has not perhaps observed that your Lordships have accepted my Amendment to substitute these words:—

331
"shall not apply in the case of motor vehicles used for naval, military or Air Force purposes while being driven by persons for the time being subject to the orders of any member of the armed forces of the Crown."
Post Office vans are not under the orders of a member of the armed forces of the Crown, and I think, therefore, that the noble Earl's apprehensions are misplaced.
EARL HOWE: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Limits of Speed.

Class of Vehicle.

Maximum Speed—Miles per hour.

1. Heavy Locomotives.

(a) Within any city, town or village

3

(b) Elsewhere

5

2. Light Locomotives.

(a) When not drawing a trailer or more than two trailers, if all the wheels of both the locomotive and any trailer drawn thereby are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

8

(b) In any other case

5

3. Heavy Motor Cars and Motor Tractors.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

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

30

(b) In any other case

16

(2) Goods Vehicles and Motor Tractors—

(i) Without trailer—

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres

20

(b) If all the wheels are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

16

(ii) With trailer—

(a) if all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are fitted with pneumatic tyres

16

(b) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

12

(iii) In any other case

5

Class of Vehicle.

Maximum Speed—Miles per hour.

4. Motor Cars and Motor Cycles.

(1) Passenger Vehicles—

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

No limit.

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

30

(c) In any other case

20

(2) Goods Vehicles—

(i) Without trailer

(a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres

30

(b) If all the wheels are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

20

(ii) With trailer—

(a) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are fitted with pneumatic tyres

16

(b) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

12

(iii) In any other case

5

5. Invalid Carriages

16

EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph 3, in relation to passenger vehicles (a), to leave out "30" and to insert "35." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have on the Paper a number of Amendments to this Schedule, but their purpose is the same and they are consequential upon one another. Their object is to simplify the Schedule of speed limits. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that on previous occasions when this point has been discussed the Government have been urged to coordinate, and in particular to simplify, the speed limits set forth in the Schedule. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill more or less gave an undertaking on this point to Lord Brentford, who strongly urged upon him

333
the need of simplifying this Schedule. I understood the noble Earl to give an undertaking that he would do so, but he now proposes Amendments which, instead of simplifying the existing speed limits by reducing them, leaves them at exactly the same number. He proposes only one concession which I submit will be of little use. I shall come to that in a moment.
My Amendments would reduce the number of speed limits to three. I also place the maximum speed limit in this Schedule at thirty-five miles an hour. My reason for using that figure is that it was recommended by the Royal Commission. I have not yet heard any reason from the noble Earl why he has disregarded the advice of the Royal Commission in that respect and has placed the limit at thirty. He has adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission in almost every other respect, and I do not understand why he should depart from it here. Again, it seems to be unnecessary to have one sort of speed limit for a passenger-carrying vehicle and another for a goods-carrying vehicle. Probably the chassis are identical and the weights carried are the same. Under this Schedule the one-ton van is limited to a speed of thirty miles an hour, but a private vehicle, such as a Rolls-Royce, which probably weighs two and a half or even three tons, may go, if it can, at 100 miles an hour. The noble Earl refused my proposed speed limit of forty miles an hour with some asperity.
Another consideration which I should like to put to your Lordships is that too many speed limits do not make for safety. I think more danger is caused on the road by having vehicles proceeding at various rates of speed than from any other cause. It leads to drivers making attempts to pass other vehicles, and this leads to what is called in the daily Press and elsewhere "cutting in" and "cutting out." To have a number of vehicles proceeding at widely different speeds does not make for safety. Furthermore, the speeds which I have endeavoured to outline in my Amendments are those more or less normally followed by the various classes of vehicle in their ordinary work. Everybody knows that the existing speed limit has been very largely disregarded, even by those who have been in charge of its administration—I mean by the police in certain places. I do not want to enlarge
334
upon that point now. The speeds that I have put down are those more or less normally used by the vehicles to which they apply.
Another point that I should like to press upon your Lordships is that of late years goods traffic has increasingly been passing to the roads, and the result is that a great traffic has been built up. Any of your Lordships who know some of our great arterial roads, such as Watling Street, will know exactly what I mean. Some of us may not like that state of affairs and may think it more desirable that the goods should be carried by rail, but the fact remains that the traders of the country have found it more to their advantage and cheaper to take goods by road. I think we ought to be on our guard against imposing any limits upon those vehicles which may have a tendency to increase costs. I cannot help feeling that, if we impose unduly low limits upon certain classes of vehicles, we shall raise the costs. I think that some of the limits proposed by the noble Earl will have exactly that effect, and I do not want to see that come about. One of the limits poposed in this Schedule is eight miles an hour. I submit to your Lordships that, if this speed is strictly adhered to, it is absolutely uneconomical. If it were an average speed of eight miles an hour there might be something to be said for it, but an average of eight miles an hour means that the vehicle must at times exceed that speed by four or five miles an hour at least. I think the limit of eight miles an hour is much too low.
The noble Earl proposes a limit of twenty miles an hour for motor omnibuses and motor coaches fitted with solid tyres and drawing a trailer. Motor coaches and motor omnibuses do not draw trailers, and practically no motor coach or motor omnibus is to-day being constructed with solid tyres. I suggest that this concession does not help industry at all. The noble Earl proposes to raise the limit from sixteen to twenty miles an hour. I would really urge upon your Lordships that it is desirable that we should reduce the number of limits written down in the Schedule. My purpose has been to reduce them to three, and if we can have three limits instead of six I think it will make the Bill much more workable, and more easier to administer. I am not wedded to the actual figures, and if the noble Earl, or your Lordships,

335
think that they are too high, I am certainly prepared to modify them, but I submit that we should try to secure simplification of the limits laid down in the Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("30") and insert ("35").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think that probably it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the whole question on this Amendment, and to say what I have to say upon this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that we have produced a new Schedule, and it is to be found on the Amendment Paper. It does not please the noble Earl, and he thinks it has still got far too many limits. I am inclined to agree with him, and if he can tell us how to reduce them we shall be very much obliged to him. He has an Amendment here increasing these speeds, which I am afraid we could not accept. I can only tell him that to achieve even this amount of simplification—and it is not as much as I should like—of the limits suggested by the Royal Commission has been an extraordinarily difficult task, and rather like putting together a jig-saw puzzle in which none of the pieces would fit. If the noble Earl would care to come to the Ministry and spend two or three hours playing with this jig-saw puzzle we shall be glad to welcome him, and I believe he will feel that the task was not quite so easy as perhaps he now thinks it is. I am proposing not to take the Third Reading of this Bill before to-morrow week and, therefore, I shall welcome any assistance which he can give.
It has been an extraordinarily difficult thing even to make this small attempt at simplifying the limits that we have made. I will tell your Lordships the principles, so far as it was possible to apply principles, on which we have proceeded. The rates of speed for heavy locomotives and light locomotives have not been altered, as they are generally agreed and they do not present any serious difficulties in enforcement. The speed limits for all other types of vehicles have been reduced to five in number—namely, 30, 20, 16, 8 and 5 miles per hour. In order to obtain this simplification certain alterations have been made. Passenger vehicles which are heavy motor cars, on solid rubber tyres, for example, the ordinary London omni-
336
bus on solid tyres, have been put up from 16 to 20 miles per hour. Goods vehicles drawing a separate trailer where both vehicles are fitted with solid rubber tyres have been put down from 12 to 8 miles per hour. Eight miles per hour is the present maximum for these. A vehicle drawing a separate trailer is in any case undesirable from the traffic point of view, and should not travel at a high speed, in order that other vehicles may overtake it without difficulty. I think your Lordships who try to overtake vehicles drawing trailers will appreciate the point of that. Invalid carriages have been put up from 16 to 20 miles per hour.
There are good reasons for imposing speed limits on goods vehicles and public service vehicles as against the private motor car. A goods vehicle, even if it is classified as a motor car, that is under 2½tons unladen, may very well, and often does, carry a load of 3 tons or more, and the total laden weight may therefore be over 5 tons. This is far in excess of the total laden weight of the heaviest private car. The amount of damage in a smash depends largely on the momentum of the vehicles. There is also, of course, the question of the damage to the road by the additional weight. If there were no speed limit at all for commercial vehicles, or if it were too high, the employer would be inclined to base his schedules and time tables on higher and higher average speeds. This would certainly be dangerous to the public and impose a considerable strain on the driver. Finally, there is the argument based on the damage to the roads. A goods vehicle of 2 tons (which would therefore be in the motor car class) carrying a 2-ton load, even on pneumatic tyres, can do considerable damage to lightly-constructed roads if driven at a high speed.
We have had to consider all these matters and we have succeeded in producing a Schedule. I am very far from saying that it is a perfect Schedule. We hope that the noble Earl will come and assist us, and we will undertake to give him a very pleasant hour or two, at the end of which I think he will come to the conclusion that the matter is not quite so easy as he now believes. The noble Earl proposes to put up all the speeds which we have put in the Schedule. We cannot accept that. We

337
have put the speeds here as high as we think they ought to be, and we have put them above those recommended by the Royal Commission, and we do not think they ought to be put higher. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this or the noble Earl's other Amendments. Before the new Schedule is moved I would like to call your attention to a misprint on the Amendment Paper. It is in paragraph 3 (2) (b). Your Lordships will see that after "(b) in any other case" there is a blank. The figure 5 should appear. I admit in conclusion that the subject is difficult, and I am far from saying that the Schedule proposed is entirely satisfactory; but after a great deal of thought and anxious care we have done the best we can do, and I ask your Lordships to accept the revised Schedule which we are proposing to insert.
EARL HOWE: Will the noble Earl tell us why he has departed from the figure of 35 miles an hour recommended by the Royal Commission? Furthermore, if the people on whose behalf I speak, and I myself, would like to come round and discuss this matter with him, do I understand that we shall be received at the Ministry? On that understanding I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: We will receive the noble Earl with open arms, and what is more will let him leave—we will not detain him. With regard to the figure of 35, the view which the Minister took was that it was extremely likely in practice to be exceeded, and that it was bound to be before the police could take action. It was considered that this was too high a speed for large motor coaches, carrying the number of people they do carry, and that having regard to public safety and the damage to the roads it was not desirable to allow that speed.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, may I enquire whether there is any provision in the Bill for the speeds at which these goods vehicles can travel being painted upon the vehicle?—because with this great number of speeds it will be extremely difficult for the police or for other persons to recognise at once whether a vehicle is going at the speed at which it is allowed to go or whether it is exceeding it. This might to some extent be obviated, at all events for the
338
benefit of the police, if it were insisted that in each case the maximum speed at which a vehicle was allowed to travel were painted on the vehicle.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, that is a very germane question, and it has already been considered by the Minister. I may say at once that the Minister has power under this Bill by regulation to prescribe any mark of this sort that is necessary, and he has under consideration whether it will be desirable to prescribe some mark, and whether it should be done by way of coloured discs or painted numbers or in some other way. We do feel that the police cannot be expected to know on sight in what particular category of speed the vehicle will come.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl and his advisers will not be moved by the persuasive eloquence of the noble Earl (Lord Howe) into raising the speed limits unduly, and if for no other reason than that, if you have a heavy vehicle of five or six tons weight travelling at 35 miles an hour, its vibration causes very serious damage to the roads. The higher speed almost doubles or trebles the damage done. In these days when we are compelled to spend such enormous sums upon repairing and maintaining the roads of the country it would be disastrous if an additional burden were placed on the ratepayers by increasing the speed of vehicles.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the First Schedule and insert the following schedule:—

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Limits of Speed.

Class of Vehicle.

Maximum Speed—Miles per hour.

1. Passenger Vehicles, that is to say vehicles constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects:—

(1) if all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and the vehicle is not drawing a trailer—

(a) if the vehicle is adapted to carry not more than seven passengers, exclusive of the driver and is not an invalid carriage

No limit.

3. Locomotives and motor tractors:—

(1) Heavy locomotives—

(a) Within any city, town or village

3

(b) Elsewhere

5

(2) Light locomotives—

(a) When not drawing a trailer or not drawing more than two trailers,

340

Class of Vehicle.

Maximum Speed—Miles per hour.

if all the wheels both of the locomotive and of any trailer drawn by it are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

8

(b) In any other case

5

(3) Motor tractors—

(a) When not drawing a trailer if all the wheels of the tractor are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

16

(b) When drawing a trailer, if all the wheels both of the tractor and of any trailer drawn by it are fitted with soft or elastic tyres

8

(c) In any other case

5

Amendment moved—
Leave out the First Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, the noble Earl on a former stage of the Bill mentioned the question of invalid carriages, and said that it was not one of very great importance. Under this Schedule the speed of invalid carriages is increased from sixteen to twenty miles an hour. These invalid carriages were refused compulsory third-party insurance, and when I moved an Amendment in Committee to include them, the noble Earl said he did not think much damage could be done by invalid carriages. But after the sitting of the House I was approached by a member of your Lordships' House who told me that that very day he had seen an invalid carriage careering along Oxford Street in and out of traffic at a rapid pace, and in his opinion it might have caused considerable damage. I hope, as this speed limit is increased, that the noble Earl will consider once more including these vehicles in the Part of the Bill concerning compulsory third-party insurance.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl will bring any facts to our notice both as to the construction and possible speed of invalid carriages, and instances of any danger caused by them, we will consider the matter. When I said they were not an important class of vehicle I meant numerically. But if it is a fact that at this speed they will be dangerous, we shall be glad to reconsider it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Traffic Areas]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the first two Amendments are designed to transfer the portion of Hertfordshire outside the Metropolitan Polio; district from the East Midland to the Eastern traffic area.
Amendments moved—
Page 79, leave out lines 41, 42, and 43.
Page 80, line 6, at end insert ("So much of the administrative county of Hertford as lies outside the Metropolitan Police district."—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: There is also a drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 6, after ("Orkney") insert ("Zetland").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert:—

"10 & 11 Vict. c. 89.

The Town Police clause Act, 1847.

The provisions of the Act with respect to hackney carriages so far as they relate of public service vehicles to which Part IV of this Act applies."

The noble Earl sail: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK had on the Paper an Amendment to move to insert—

"60 & 61 Vict. c.38.

The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

In section 65 the words "and for preventing over-crowding in such conveyances."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl is prepared to accept this Amendment in a different form. Accordingly, instead of the words in the last column I propose to insert "Section 65 so far as it relates to public service vehicles to which Part IV of this Act applies."
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl moves it in that form, we will accept it. It has to do with Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 30, at end insert:

"60& 61 Vict. c. 38.

The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897.

Section 65 so far as it relates to public service vehicles to which Part IV of this Act applies."—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.