Lords Sitting of 15 November 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack,
LORD BINGLEY.
The Right Honourable George Richard Lane Fox, having been created Baron Bingley of Bramham in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WARWICK) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WELLINGTON, SALOP) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORTHING) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint their Lordships that they have made the following Order relative to the Bill:
"That if the said Bill be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed, and shall be recorded in the Votes as having been so read and committed.
"That all Petitions presented in the present Session against the said Bill which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament; and that all grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard, and all notices of objection given in the present Session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees, shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament.
"That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session:—
"That this be a Standing Order of the House."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It is only that we may finish the Road and Rail Traffic Act to-day—and also the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—so that in another place they may have the opportunity of considering the Amendments your Lordships have been pleased to make.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT , 1932 (BOROUGH OF HORNSEY ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Hornsey be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Hornsey, and laid before this House on the 7th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF STROOD).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that a similar Order in the case of the rural district of Strood be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-meat under the Act, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the rural district of Strood, and laid before this House on the 7th instant, be: approved.—(The. Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRYNAMMAN AND DISTRICT ELE CTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER , 1933.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Brynamman and District Electricity (Extension) Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BENEFICES (SEQUESTRATIONS) MEASURE, 1933.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Sequestrations) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right rev. Prelate said: My Lords, I need not detain the House many minutes while I propose the Motion standing in my name. I am very grateful that the arrangement has been made to enable me to move this now. This Measure is to round off and fill one or two gaps in the law relating to sequestration. Your Lordships know that sequestrators are the people who receive the income and who are possessed of the property of a benefice during a vacancy. Vacancies in these days are apt to be prolonged. Recent legislation has insisted upon certain periods before which a Bishop can institute or before
350
even a patron can present, and there are other circumstances related to the financial and other conditions of to-day which make it the case. The benefices are often vacant for months, sometimes for many months. Therefore, the responsibility of sequestrators is greater than it was.
This Measure deals with four points. The first is to enable the Bishop to assign the amount of the income to be paid out for the curate-in-charge for occasional duty taken during a vacancy. Sometimes no curate is placed in charge of a vacant benefice. The present law does not explicitly say that the Bishop has any control; this Measure provides that the Bishop may control the expenditure. The second matter is the care of the parsonage and the garden. Your Lordships will realise that if a parsonage house or garden is left to itself for six or twelve months the result may be disastrous. There is nothing in the present law which enables sequestrators definitely to look after a garden and take care it does not become a wilderness, or even to see that the pipes of the house do not get frozen, or that the house is thoroughly aired; and as the new incumbent has a right to the profits from the date of the last vacancy subject to such charges as the sequestrators have legally incurred, the sequestrators are rather reluctant to spend money, even on such a necessary thing as keeping the house in condition or keeping the garden from going to weeds. This Measure provides that the sequestrators are to have care for the house and garden. It defines certain things which may be done in that connection and it places all this under the authority of the Bishop who may, if he thinks fit, delegate it to the archdeacon whose business it is to keep an eye on the property.
The third thing mentioned is to get rid of trouble that sometimes occurs between sequestrators and a new incumbent in respect of the money which sequestrators have properly spent in order that the services may be maintained. The income of the benefice, of course, comes in at various times in the course of the year. A great deal, the greater part, comes from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty and is payable quarterly or half-yearly as the case may be. Whenever a payment becomes due

351
it becomes payable to the incumbent, although he may have been installed only the day before, and the sequestrators are left to settle with him regarding what is due to them. That is very often the occasion of trouble. This Measure provides that the sequestrators may require the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to apportion the amount of income which accrues during the vacancy to be paid to them. That, it is hoped, will end all quarrel and dispute. The fourth point concerns a small matter. Occasionally under the Benefices (Exercise of Duties) Measure a Bishop has to inhibit an incumbent, and he may allow the curate-in-charge to live in the house. Sometimes the curate-in-charge has got a house of his own and, in these circumstances, it is not unreasonable that the house should be let. This Measure empowers the letting of the house. These are the four points with which the Measure deals. They are all of a practicable nature, and will assist sequestrators to discharge their responsibilities better. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Sequestrations) Measure, 1933, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FIREARMS AND IMITATION FIRE ARMS (CRIMINAL USE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert ("and includes, except for the purpose of the definition of the expression imitation firearm,' a prohibited weapon as defined by Section six of the Firearms Act, 1920").
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment was introduced in the Commons in order to make the Bill thoroughly watertight. Under the Firearms Act of 1920 all weapons which were capable of discharging noxious liquids or gas were included, but in the present Bill the expression "firearm" only applied to weapons that could be described as firearms. The Home Office, in order to make this Bill include every class of weapon, have extended the definition according to the words of the Amendment, to include
"except for the purpose of the definition of the expression 'imitation firearm' a prohibited weapon as defined by Section six of the Firearms Act, 1920.
The reason for this, I understand, is that besides guns and pistols there are perfectly harmless looking articles—I should be glad to give any of your Lordships a demonstration afterwards if you are curious—which are dangerous. There is one, for instance, which looks like a fountain pen or a pencil at its so-called business end and which acts as a pencil, but at the other end it can be loaded with gas or even with a bullet. It is in order to include weapons of this sort that this Amendment was introduced in another place. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIAS TICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
The Title:
An Act to make provision for regulating the carriage of goods on roads by motor vehicles and for controlling the use of vehicles on certain roads; to amend the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the wages, hours and other conditions of employment of persons employed in connection with certain motor vehicles and relating to payments to hospitals in respect of treatment consequent on injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles; to amend the law relating to railways and to make provision for constituting a council to advise on questions in connection with the means of, and facilities for, transport; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY moved to leave out "the" ["the provision of the Road Traffic Act, 1930"] and insert "certain". The noble Marquess said: This Amendment to the title has been rendered necessary by the inclusion of the new clause which relates to the alteration of traffic areas.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out the first ("the")and insert ("certain").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to omit "relating to the wages, hours and other conditions of employment of persons employed in connection with certain motor vehicles and relating to payments to hospitals in respect of treatment consequent on injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the effect of this and the preceding Amendment will make the sentence read "to amend certain provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930." It is considered that these Amendments to the title are sufficiently wide to cover the new Government clause relating to the alteration of traffic areas and the new clause relating to hospitals.
Amendment moved—
Line 5, leave out from ("1930") to the end of line 10.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Classes of licences.
2.—(1) Licences shall be of the following classes:—

(a)public carriers' licences;

(b)limited carriers' licences;

(c)private carriers' licences.

(2) A public carrier's licence (in this Part of this Act referred to as "an A licence") shall entitle the holder thereof to use the authorised vehicles for the carriage of goods for hire or reward or for the carriage of goods for or in connection with his business as a carrier of goods, whether by road transport or any other kind of transport, but it shall be a condition of the licence that no vehicle which is for the time being an authorised vehicle shall be used for the carriage of goods for or in connection with any other trade or business carried on by him except such storage or warehousing of goods as may be incidental to his business as a carrier.
In relation to a licence held by a person carrying on a canal, dock or harbour undertaking, the reference in this subsection to use of vehicles for the carriage of goods for or in connection with the business of the holder of a licence as a carrier of goods, shall include a reference to the use of vehicles for the carriage of goods for, or in connection with, that undertaking.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "such storage or warehousing of goods as may be incidental to his business as a carrier" and insert "the business of the storage or warehousing of goods carried on in conjunction with the business of a carrier." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to provide for the case of furniture removers and warehousemen whose business consists both of storage and haulage and is not adequately provided for, we think, by the words at the end of Clause 2—namely, "incidental to his business as a carrier." The expression "incidental to," we think, may cause difficulty because in some cases the main business is that of a warehouseman and the incidental business that of a carrier. In other cases as provided in the clause, warehousing is incidental to the business of removal. The Amendment endeavours to meet this point by substituting the words "carried on in conjunction with." When this matter was under discussion in Standing Committee in another place the Minister indicated that he would consider a further Amendment to meet the case of carriers who are also warehousemen. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, leave out from ("except") to the end of line 4 and insert ("the business of the storage or warehousing of goods carried on in conjunction with the business of a carrier").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the object of the noble Earl's Amend-

355
ment, as I see it, is to enable a public carrier who also carries on the business of storage and warehousing goods to operate under an A licence. The scheme of the Bill is that the A licences should be limited strictly to public carriers who lay themselves out to carry goods for hire or reward or who use their vehicles for no business other than that of a carrier. An exception is made, I agree in lines 3 and 4 on page 5, where storage or warehousing of goods is merely incidental to their carriage and really is part of the business of a carrier. I feel that beyond that it is not really desirable to go. The noble Earl has instanced the case of furniture removers. I thought he had them in mind and it is true that under the provisions of this clause as it stands at present the furniture remover would require a B licence. It might undoubtedly suit some furniture removers and warehousemen that they should be Able to carry on the whole of their business under an A licence, but I would like to point out that not only does this Amendment cut across the general scheme of the Bill, but I am not at all certain that it would not prove inconvenient and harmful to the operators themselves.
You must remember that an A licence, if granted, can be used for any form of carrying goods for hire and reward in any part of the country, and is therefore open to objection on the part of any public carrier. On the other hand, if the operator made application for a B licence, as he would have to under the clause proposed, and accepted a condition that the carrying of goods for hire or reward would be strictly limited to the carriage of goods from and to his warehouse or the carriage of furniture and household effects, then, I venture to say, it would be less likely that there would be any opposition. For those reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, there is a small drafting Amendment to be made to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, after ("to") insert ("the").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Duration of licences.
(4) Where an application has been made for a licence for the currency period, the licensing authority, if for administrative reasons he deems it desirable so to do, may, pending the determination of the application, grant to the applicant a short-term licence for a period not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a first application for an A licence, twelve months;

(b) in the case of a first application for a B licence, six months; and

(c) in any other case, three months, but any short-term licence so granted shall cease to have effect as from the date on which a licence granted for the currency period is expressed to take effect.

EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall interfere with or affect the grant of a licence under the provisions of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is Special provisions as to certain applications'."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to a point raised in the Committee stage and the noble Marquess said that he would look into it between that stage and the next. It refers to machinery for the grant of temporary or short-term licences under subsection (4) where the licensing authority for special reasons deems it desirable to issue short-term licences pending the determination of the application. What we are anxious to make quite clear is that on the first application which will be made next spring—I think the date is April 1—the issue of these short-term licences will not conflict with the licence which the licensing authority is obliged to issue under Clause 7, subsections (2) and (3). These licences will be for the period of two years in the case of A licences, contrasted with a period of twelve months mentioned in Clause 3, subsection (4), and for one year in the case of B licences, contrasted with six months mentioned in Clause 3, subsection (9). We want to have it made quite clear, that the licences which the licensing authority is bound to issue under Clause 7 will be for the full period and will not be shortened as might perhaps be indicated in Clause 3, subsection (4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (4) insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, as was promised by the noble Marquess on the Committee stage this point has been looked into again, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are absolutely satisfied that the grant of short-term licences in the circumstances indicated will not in any way affect an applicant's right under Clause 7 (2) or (3). I hope in those circumstances that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Discretion of licensing authority as to grant or refusal of licences.
(2) The licensing authority in exercising his discretion shall have regard primarily to the interests of the public generally, including those of persons requiring, as well as those of persons providing, facilities for transport and, in particular, shall have regard in the case of an application for an A licence or for a B licence—

(a) where the applicant is the holder of an existing licence of the same class, to the extent to which he is authorised to use goods vehicles thereunder for the carriage of goods for hire or reward;

(b)to the previous conduct of the applicant in the capacity of a carrier of goods;

(c)to the number and type of vehicles proposed to be used under the licence;

(d)in determining the number of vehicles to be authorised, to the need for providing for occasions when vehicles are withdrawn from service for overhaul or repair;

and, in the case of an application for a B licence, also to the extent to which the applicant intends that the vehicles proposed to be used under the licence shall be used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d), to insert:
"(e) the extent to which the vehicles to be authorised will be in substitution for horse-drawn vehicles previously used by the applicant for the purposes of his business as a carrier."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in pursuance of an undertaking given yesterday in Committee that direction to the licensing authority would be included in the Bill that he should have regard, in con-
358
sidering an application for a licence, to the extent to which the vehicles to be authorised will be in substitution for horse-drawn vehicles previously used by the applicant for the purposes of his business as a carrier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 43, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Special provisions as to certain applications]:
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(5) If on objection being made to an application for the renewal of au existing licence the licensing authority refuses to giant the renewal of the licence or imposes new conditions on the grant of the licence and the applicant proves to the Appeal Tribunal that the refusal or the new conditions will reduce the value of the business for which he intended to use the vehicle the Appeal Tribunal shall award to the applicant such an amount of compensation as shall appear to the Tribunal to be just in all the circumstances and such compensation shall be paid to the applicant by the party or parties who made objection to the application and if there is more than one such party the amount of the compensation shall ho paid by them in such proportions as the Tribunal may determine."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved on the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Iliffe, and the noble Earl then said that he felt certain that the Minister
"will consider the representations which have been made hero to-day, but I am certainly not in a position, in view of what I have said, to hold out any great hope that he will reverse the decision he has come to."
As the noble Lord, Lord Iliffe, is unfortunately unable to be in his place this afternoon I have been asked to deal with it. I indicated in Committee that the Amendment would be put down on the Report stage. We are endeavouring by this Amendment to meet a complaint that injustice may be done to a carrier who has complied with all the conditions of his licence and is refused a licence because facilities, in the opinion of the licensing authority, are in excess of requirements. It simply comes to this, that a man and all his employees may completely lose their livelihood through no fault of their own. He may have conducted his business in a perfectly satisfactory manner and have served every-

359
body without any complaint whatever from any quarter. The reply of the Government to this point was that:
"the licensing authority would have no power to take into consideration the question of demand and redundancy in coming to a decision as to what licences he should grant and to, what extent ho should grant licences."
I should like to submit that this Amendment does not seek to fetter the discretion of the licensing authority in anyway.
The licensing authority would have full power when objection was taken by rival firms to tell the applicant that his licence would not be renewed. In that case, however, the applicant would be entitled by this Amendment to claim compensation which would be assessed by the Appeal Tribunal and would be paid by the objectors. Precisely the same situation arose in various areas in which drink licences have been extinguished. The Act of 1910 recognised that compensation should be paid where a licence was withdrawn as being redundant and compensation money is provided by other holders of licences in the area. The Government said that no provision, of this kind was made in the Road Traffic Act in connection with public service vehicles. It is quite true that no provision was made and the effect has been to cause a great deal of injustice in the motor passenger coach industry and, as I said in Committee, I do not see that two wrongs make a right. The point specially affects small carriers who have only a few vehicles and who have probably provided in their area services of the greatest value and convenient, cheap and rapid transport.
I submit to your Lordships that we ought to be particularly jealous to try to protect, as far as we can, the interest of the small trader. It is very difficult for him to help himself. It is only the two Houses of Parliament that can look after his interest. Experience of the Road Traffic Act has shown how little protection the small man gets in making applications. The small men, for the most part, have been absolutely squeezed out of the motor coach and motor omnibus services under the Road Traffic Act. I submit that the point was more or less covered when the London Passenger Transport Board was constituted, for the London Passenger Transport Board,
360
which has a monopoly of stopping places in the London area, has had to buy up the small independent omnibus undertakings and has had to compensate them for having extinguished their right to serve the public. We have here a point of substance, a point which I think should appeal to our sense of fair play and justice, and I hope that if the noble Marquess can possibly do so he will give us some concession on this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, what is to prevent collusion between two of the noble Earl's small traders? They take a road which is already blocked, as many of the roads are, by enormous lorries, They put on a lorry, or two or three lorries, and they know perfectly well that objection will be made because they are causing unnecessary congestion and giving unnecessary facilities, so they agree that one of them shall complain that this is being done, and they stand in and get compensation. What is to prevent that?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, as was promised during the Committee stage, this point has been considered again, but I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to accept the noble Earl's Amendment. To begin with this Amendment is really contrary to the expressed intentions of the Bill. As I pointed out yesterday, it is made perfectly clear in Clause 18 that nothing in this Bill "is to be treated as conferring on the holder of a licence any right to the continuance of any benefits," etc. I did, it is perfectly true, refer to the analogy of the Road Traffic Act, where Parliament decided that no vested interest should be created in the carriage of passengers by road for hire or reward. The noble Earl said that a good deal of injustice had been caused as a result of the operation of that Act. I am not aware of that. I do not know to what extent this injustice exists, but I venture to say that, generally speaking, a far greater number of small operators of public-service vehicles have received a degree of protection and stability under the Act than could by any possibility have enjoyed that protection and stability under the conditions of unlimited competition which obtained before

361
the Act became law. It would be quite unseasonable to give every owner of a lorry who once gets a licence a perpetual right to run over the public highways, and thus create an enormous new vested interest.
There is this possibility, which has to be considered. It is quite possible that an operator may have built up his business as the result of cutting rates, or something of that kind. Under Clause 7 of this Bill he would get a licence on his application for the greatest number of vehicles that he operated at one time in the year 1932–3, and it might be quite reasonable that after that the number of the vehicles which he was entitled to operate should be reduced. It would be quite unnecessary, and indeed ridiculous, in those circumstances that he should receive any compensation. What is the position now? The position now is that there is unlimited competition, particularly among small operators, so far as goods traffic is concerned, and they are continually being driven off the road. They get no compensation now for that, and I, personally, venture to say with a great deal of confidence that these small operators in particular will get very much better treatment under this Bill than they could possibly hope for if the Bill were not passed into law.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8:
(conditions of licences.
8.—(1) It shall be a condition of every licence—

(a) that the authorised vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition;

(b)that any provisions (whether contained in any statute or in any statutory rules or orders)with respect to limits of speed and weight, laden and unladen, and the loading of goods vehicles are complied with in relation to the authorised vehicles;

(c) that in relation to the authorised vehicles the requirements specified in Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (as varied or amended by any order under that section or by this Act or any subsequent enactment), with respect to the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty and the hours which they are to have for rest are observed;

(d) that the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the keeping of records are complied with.

(2) It shall be a condition of every A licence and of every B licence that the provisions of Section ninety-three of the Road
362
Traffic Act, 1930, as amended and applied by this Part of this Act, are complied with in relation to the authorised vehicles.
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of the last preceding section the licensing authority may in his discretion attach to a B licence, as respects the user of the authorised vehicles, or any of them, for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, all or any of the following conditions, that is to say—

(a) a condition that they shall be so used only in a specified district or between specified places;

(b) a condition that certain classes or descriptions of goods only shall be so carried;

(c) a condition that goods shall be so carried only for specified persons;

(d) such other conditions (not being conditions with respect to the rates to be charged) as the licensing authority may think fit to impose in the public interest and with a view to preventing uneconomic competition.

(4) The licensing authority may, from time to time, on the application of the holder of the licence cancel or vary any conditions attached to a B licence in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (a) the words "and in particular that a proper speedometer has been fixed on the vehicle of such size and in such position as may be easily readable from the road or sidewalk while the vehicle is in motion." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to put in a little bit of machinery, in order to make it possible to enforce the law. The suggestion is that it should be regarded as part of the necessary equipment of a car or vehicle to which this Bill applies, that it should have a speedometer so fixed, and of such a size, as will enable it to be read from outside—from the roadway or sidewalk. I do not think that that would, as I explained to your Lordships on a previous occasion, mean a very big dial—six or eight inches across six inches I should think would be ample. My conception is, though the details would have to be fixed, of course, by the authorities later on, that it would be divided into quarters, and it would measure the speed according to the speed limit which attached to that particular vehicle.
As your Lordships are aware, under the Road Traffic Act there are a great number of speed limits. I will take the

363
highest, 30 miles, which applies probably to the largest number of vehicles involved. My conception would be that the speedometer would not begin to show anything until 25 miles an hour had been passed. That would be the first speed shown by the hand on the dial. Then it would be divided into sections. I think quarters would be enough. The first quarter would show any speed up to 35 miles an hour; the second quarter any speed up to 45 miles an hour; the third any speed up to 55 miles an hour; and the last quarter anything above that speed. In that way, if you had a white dial not encumbered with figures beyond those three or four figures, it would be quite possible to construct a speedometer easily visible from outside, and any observer could see whether the car was complying with its speed limit in the first instance, and secondly, which would be very valuable in the case of an accident, he would know what the speed of the car was immediately before the accident—not at the accident but from the moment an accident became probable. That is the simple purpose of my Amendment, and it is one which, I venture to think, would be of great advantage to the State if it was enacted.
May I remind your Lordships of the history of this question of speed limits? Originally, in the ages long ago, no mechanically-propelled vehicle was allowed to go at more than four miles at hour on the road. Then the first great concession was made when the speed limit was fixed at 20 miles an hour. After considerable experience it was found that that limit was habitually broken by practically almost everyone who used a car on the road. That was the difficulty. Considerable efforts were made by the police authorities and others to meet that difficulty. They had a number of police employed and used to construct what were called "police traps" on all the main roads. I think everyone is agreed now, and I certainly hold that view, that the efforts made, though well-intentioned, were quite unsatisfactory and did not touch the main evil; the main evil being fast driving under conditions which were dangerous. Indeed, the effect of the traps was this, to stop fast driving on sections of the road where it was certainly less dangerous than it would have been in other situations.
The result of all that was that after a period of time the authorities came to the conclusion that the existence of the speed limit for what I may call luxury cars was undesirable. I personally did not hold that view. I thought that it would be better to mike some modification in the speed limit and make some further effort to enforce the law. But at the same time that they removed the speed limit from luxury cars they reenacted the speed limit for all other cars, and your Lordships will find in the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act a number of speeds which are applied to all the different kinds of cars. No other effort, beyond to some extent relaxing the speed and repeating the enactment, was made in the Road Traffic Act to secure compliance with the law, as it was then fixed, beyond this, that there were inserted certain provisions into the Road Traffic Act designed to deal more severely with dangerous driving. We were assured by the Government of that day that that was the real way to proceed, that a further tightening up of the law against dangerous driving would really produce all the consequences which we all desired, and would make it quite safe to abolish the speed limit in some cases and to relax it in others.
There is no question at all that the speed limit is not now complied with. That is not disputed. I observe that the noble Marquess, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, made a very distinct statement to that effect. He said:
"It is, I regret to say, notorious that in many respects the existing law is not observed, whether, for example, it be in the matter of speed or in the hours of driving."
Therefore we have the same position now that we were faced with in 1930—namely, a speed limit applying to a number of vehicles using the road, and that speed limit habitually disregarded. There can be no question about the facts at all. I have never verified it myself, but I have heard many people say how they have gone behind one of these motor coaches and observed by their own speedometers that the coach was going 40 or 50 miles an hour at least. I believe the police would confirm that view.
The question is: What are you going to do? Are you going to do the same kind of thing as we did in 1930? Are we going to say: "Here is the speed limit. We will in some respects increase

365
the penalties, but we will do nothing else "? Is it not quite clear that the mere increase of the penalties has been tried and has been shown to be an ineffective way of dealing with this matter? If my noble friend can show me that I am wrong, I agree a great part of the case that I am submitting will disappear. But, as far as I know, there are no facts to show that the increase of penalties by itself has been sufficient to enforce the speed limit, and I think the reason is quite plain, that people will take the risk of that. They see what seems to them a fair opportunity for going fast, and they will go fast. I know that in this Bill the purpose is to impose licences on all the drivers and to make them subject to the removal of those licences if they "habitually and continually" (those, if I remember rightly, are the words of the clause) break the law. That will not be of the slightest use to enforce a thing like a speed limit. But that is the only additional penalty that is attached by this Bill. Therefore you will be left really to the old penalties, the penalties under the Act of 1930. We know they have failed; there is no doubt about that. That is what the Minister in charge of the Bill told us. In point of fact, the law is notoriously broken constantly.
My suggestion is a very simple one. It is this, that you should make it much easier to detect a breach of the law without any setting of traps, which I think are very unsatisfactory, besides imposing an immense burden on the police and making a considerable addition to our already over-burdened rates. This makes no addition, or scarcely any of that kind. It provides simply that there shall be an easy method of ascertaining by any one—any casual policeman and, if necessary, any passer-by—whether the car is breaking the law or not. That, I think, will operate as a much greater deterrent than the infliction of occasional severe penalties. I venture to appeal to those—and there are many present—who are more acquainted with. the working of the law than I am, but is it not common knowledge that what really deters the criminal—and this, of course, is a, crime—is certainty of punishment? It is not the amount of punishment that matters half so much. It is the certainty of punishment, so that the criminal will know that if he breaks the law the great probability
366
is that he will be punished. It does not matter very much whether you punish him very severely or not—of course, where it is a bad crime you have to punish him very severely—but the thing that is found to operate as a deterrent has been the certainty of punishment. I submit that this would make a very great addition to the certainty of the law.
I turn for one moment to the only argument that, as far as I know, has been suggested against this proposal. It is said that it would increase the cost of the motor vehicle, as I have no doubt it would; it would mean fitting a new bit of equipment. I do not believe that any one will maintain—at least, I should be surprised if they do—that there is any difficulty in constructing the machine that is necessary. I do not see how that can be so. Speedometers are seen continually and there is no difficulty in having a speedometer with a large dial any more than there is one with a small dial. Therefore there can be no technical engineering difficulty in doing this. The only difficulty is that it will cause a certain addition to the cost of the vehicle. What does that mean? These cars run from £100 upwards—several hundred pounds. I do not know at all what the cost of fixing a speedometer of this kind would be, but I have great confidence that if you asked the engineering talent of this country to devise one at a moderate cost it could be done. I should be very much, surprised to hear that it would cost more than £10 additional. That would be an evil. I do not say that it is not an evil. Any additional cost to the lawful users is an evil—and no doubt they are the great majority—well I do not say the great majority in this respect—but an important minority of the users of the roads who really do try to comply with the law in all respects.
No doubt it is hard on them that they should have to pay £10 more, or whatever it may be, for their car, but, after all, I am not going to anticipate what my noble friend Lord Buckmaster will say later on when he comes to move his Motion, but it is notorious that we are in the presence of a terrific evil, one whose importance it is really impossible to exaggerate. A noble friend of mine the other day waxed very eloquent about the injustice of some provision to motorists, but he did not seem to realise the fearful injustice that is

367
now being inflicted on thousands and thousands of people who use the roads perfectly lawfully. That is the fact. The injustice and the cruelty and the hardship are terrific. I saw some figures before I came down here which are perfectly accurate. They show that the lives which have been sacrificed on the roads are, to within a few tens, equal to the lives sacrificed in the great Boer War. That is the literal truth; and as for casualties other than deaths, we are sacrificing nine or ten times as many every year as were sacrificed in the Boer War by our troops alone.
That is an instance that does not make the thing any better or worse, but it does illustrate the tremendous evil, and if it can be shown that this evil is largely due to speed—and on that I have no kind of doubt—if Parliament, in its wisdom, decides that these cars ought not to go more than 20 miles or 30 miles an hour, whatever the particular class of car may be, surely we ought to do something to make that law effective? It is not only the actual loss of life, although that is serious. It is the fact that it is a scandal and a great evil to have a law on the Statute Book and to submit to its being continually broken. That creates every kind of evil, as those who are familiar with the history of Prohibition in the United States know. You must enforce the law, otherwise it is better to strike that law off the Statute Book. Nothing is more demoralising to the people than to have a criminal law which is continually ignored. I am sorry to have taken up so much time and I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Viscount has addressed himself to a problem on which he has addressed your Lordships on more than one occasion, and I should be the last person to quarrel with him for doing so. It is a matter of the highest importance that motor cars should be regulated on the roads, and that is certainly the prime object of this Bill. The noble Viscount has ranged round the subject of his Amendment, which confines itself to one particular method of regulating speed on the roads, and that is tie particular point to which perhaps the noble
368
Viscount will allow me to address myself. The object of this Amendment is to make it a condition of every licence that a proper speedometer is fixed to the vehicle "of such size and in such a position as may be easily readable from the road or sidewalk while the vehicle is in motion." The noble Viscount has shown your Lordships his capacity for ingenious discovery which I, for one, did not realise was among his other accomplishments. But the speedometer which he suggests is one which I think it would be very difficult to manufacture. The speedometer would have to show that the driver was breaking the law; and it would mean that the vehicle would be proceeding at such a rapid pace that I think it would be difficult for any speedometer to be devised which could show to anyone on the roadside that the car was proceeding at an undue velocity.
The noble Viscount spoke of a speedometer which, by an indicating needle in various quarters, would show roughly that a certain speed was being surpassed according to the quarter in which the needle was found. I do not feel disposed, at this moment, because I am not capable of doing so, to argue with the noble Viscount that it would be very difficult for any one standing on the roadside—the arm of the law or the individual passer-by—to be able accurately to say from the speedometer that the law was being infringed
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I may venture to interrupt the noble Marquess, I made a suggestion of this kind, I suppose months, if not years ago, and I suggested to the Ministry of Transport that if they had any doubt about its practicability it would be quite within their powers to carry out experiments to see whether it was practicable. May I ask have any such experiments been carried out?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not proposing to argue the matter with the noble Viscount, but I would assure him that his recommendations will be passed on to the Ministry of Transport, and I will go further and see that the point which the noble Viscount emphasises receives full consideration. If I may now return to the point with which I was dealing, I was saying that a speedometer to fulfil these conditions

369
would have to be very large and, in the case of a goods vehicle in particular, it seems to me that it would inevitably be broken frequently in the course of the journeys which that vehicle would have to undertake. It seems to me that another practical objection is that an instrument of this nature, which would have to be carried externally, would very rapidly become covered with mud or else the instrument would be so high up on the vehicle that it would be even more difficult to ascertain what it was registering than the noble Viscount seems to think.
The object which the noble Viscount has in view could best be attained, if the practical difficulties could be overcome, by means of a recording speedometer that would show on a chart for the twenty-four hours the speeds attained and the distances covered. It will be remembered that your Lordships passed a Bill on the 28th February last, introduced by Lord Halsbury. This Bill required that all vehicles subject to a speed limit, and therefore all goods vehicles, should be fitted with a recording speedometer. The then Minister of Transport caused an undertaking to be given that he would have tests made of the instruments of this nature now on the market with a view to ascertaining whether a dependable recording speedometer could be manufactured at a reasonable cost capable of being readily fitted to existing vehicles. These tests have been proceeding during the past seven or eight months, but are not yet completed. I am given to understand that there are many technical difficulties connected with the speedometer in the investigations and examinations which have been taking place in the last few months, and these have still to be overcome. The manufacturers of some of the more promising types have yet to submit simplified instruments which would meet the conditions proposed to be established by the Bill. The tests have been carried out on lorries used on ordinary constructional works carried out by the Ministry of Transport on behalf of the Air Ministry.
Generally speaking, the results so far obtained seem to indicate that an instrument of reasonable accuracy could be obtained at a cost, if manufactured in bulk, of approximately the sum mentioned by the noble Viscount—£10. The cost of fitting such an instrument to the newest
370
types of goods vehicles would not be great, but in the case of the older types of vehicles considerable difficulties present themselves and the necessary alterations might prove costly. The total cost of fitting all goods vehicles would exceed £2,000,000, apart altogether from the cost of administration, testing and inspection. As already stated, however, the tests are not complete and a thoroughly satisfactory and simple instrument has not yet beck obtained. I would assure the noble Viscount that these tests are proceeding, and that the inventors are being employed and questioned as to the means of producing a speedometer of the kind desired, and I sincerely hope that more satisfactory results will be achieved than has been reached so far.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the fullness of his answer, but I must honestly say I think it is in the highest possible degree unsatisfactory. I really do not understand the attitude of the Ministry of Transport in this matter. They treat it as of very little importance whether there are 7,000 or 8,000 people a year killed on the roads. They have been several months investigating this very simple problem, and they tell us that they have not yet reached a result. Then they scatter to the winds this figure of £2,000,000 which, I admit, in the aggregate is very large, but, spread over 200,000 or 300,000 vehicles, which is what it really means, it is only about £10 per vehicle. That is nothing at all compared to the evil we have to meet.
I really do feel this is most unsatisfactory. As far as I can make out from the noble Marquess, no experiments whatever have been carried out in the direction I indicate. In my judgment what I suggest would be a much simpler instrument than an instrument which recorded a chart of everything done during the journey. Look at the objections my noble friend has been instructed by his Department to put forward. He says this thing would be covered with mud and you would not be able to read it. To begin with, all the roads on which great speeds are achieved are free from mud now; they are all tarred. To go on with, what do you have? You have on every car a number and a letter which have to be read everywhere. Are they covered with mud? Of course not. If that plate is

371
not covered with mud, why should a speedometer be covered with mud? There is nothing in the objection at all. I hesitate very much to divide your Lordships, but I feel that unless a more satisfactory reply is given I have no course open to me except to ask your Lordships to express your opinion upon this matter, which is really one of vital importance. Here we have an opportunity of doing something real and effective to put a stop to this frightful evil. I am quite ready to accept any suggestion that the Amendment shall not come into force for a certain period, if you like, in order to give further opportunity to the various owners to comply with the law. I should be ready to accept any modification of that kind suggested by the Government. If I can get anybody to "tell" with me I shall certainly ask the House to divide on this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I listened with the greatest possible interest and attention to what has fallen from the noble Viscount. I remember three years ago when this question was under discussion the noble Viscount producing an Order Paper and sketching upon it what he had in mind in regard to these speedometers. But it was pointed out then by the representative of the Ministry of Transport who, I think, was the late Earl Russell, that it was really absolutely impossible to get an instrument which could be depended upon to give any sort of reliability.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Why?
EARL HOWE: The noble Viscount asks why. He has described an instrument the dial of which must obviously be of very large dimensions, but he did not indicate the dimensions.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, I did, six inches.
EARL HOWE: I submit that if you had a dial of six inches in diameter it would be difficult to read it from here on the other side of the House with a car going at a speed which the noble Viscount thinks is contrary to the law. I submit that to use a speedometer with a dial of only six inches would be useless for the purpose he has in mind. I think it must be at least 1½ or 2 feet in order for it to
372
be possible for one to see it with a car going at any speed. The noble Viscount says there is no difficulty about making a large one or a small one that would be accurate. I submit there is. Speedometers depend very largely for their accuracy of working upon how accurately the hand of the instrument can be balanced, and if you have a hand that is like the hand of a clock, which it is bound to be if the dial is two feet in diameter, it will be a foot long, for it will have to be the width of the dial, and the balancing of that would require most intricate machinery that would be very difficult to manufacture.
I submit that there are real practical difficulties which the noble Viscount does not take into account. Take the question of the drive. The bigger you make an instrument the more strain you put upon the drive. I do not know whether the noble Viscount drives his own motor car, but if he does he will no doubt have come across plenty of speedometers where the drive is constantly giving trouble, breaking or something of that sort. It has to be very carefully attended to and very carefully lubricated otherwise it will give a great deal of trouble. Commercial motor lorries are not usually able to spare a great deal of time for such business. Again, the noble Viscount has told us nothing about what he expects to happen at night. After all, an enormous amount of lorry traffic and motor coach traffic is going on up and down our roads at night. What is to happen at night? Again, there is a thing that happens in all these mechanical devices—backlash develops. A slight degree of backlash will cause quite a considerable degree of inaccuracy in such an instrument. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Viscount and others in your Lordships' House who have drawn attention to the terrible casualty roll occurring on the roads to-day. Many of us have been applying much thought to it and have ventured to submit some of our proposals to deal with it privately to the Minister of Transport. While I have every sympathy with the noble Viscount I cannot possibly allow his reference to the casualties to pass unchallenged. I must ask your Lordships to allow me to point out that it is not in all cases the fault of the vehicle when an accident happens. I have in my pocket

373
particulars of four or five cases which have happened during the last few days and have been reported in the local papers. These are particulars of terrible accidents which involved loss of life. A boy, for instance, got a bicycle off a rubbish heap and built it up. It had no brakes, no light, the handle-bars were all loose, and he went on it, wobbled about, got under a motor lorry and was killed. The motor lorry went down an embankment and the driver was injured and the lorry considerably damaged. You cannot call that the fault of the motor vehicle. It is terrible that these things should happen but they do. One knows there are a lot of these accidents and that that is the sort of thing that happens. The noble Viscount all tided to luxury motor cars. I suppose he had in mind the light cars. I submit that the motor car to-day is really a necessity. The light motor car is a necessity for a business man.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I have hurt the noble Earl's feelings I did not mean to do so. I did not intend to suggest that lie was luxurious. I used that expression merely as a short way of describing the cars. I will accept any other description.
EARL HOWE: That is by the way. To get back to the commercial motor vehicle, I submit that to place an extra burden of £2,000,000 on the heavy vehicle industry of this country is not a negligible thing. There are a great many commercial vehicles subject to a speed limit. There are 300,000 or 400,000 of them, and if they have all to spend £10 each to equip themselves with this speedometer you will be placing a very severe burden upon the industry. I submit that before we go in for expenditure of that sort we must first of all make certain that such an instrument is practicable, and having decided whether it is practicable, then we have to decide whether it is advisable. I submit that such an instrument would concentrate the powers far too much on the question of speed. I have always contended it is speed in the wrong place, speed improperly used and not speed per se that is the most dangerous thing on the road. I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this to a Division. I should hate to have to vote against him for I have a great deal of sympathy with
374
the motives which induced him to bring this matter forward.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether it is possible to carry out the suggestion of my noble friend Viscount Cecil. I am not a great mechanic and, therefore, I cannot offer any opinion upon that, but I do know that in my district every week the time of the magistrates is taken up by three or four cases generally of heavy motor vehicles which have exceeded the speed limit. In many cases, having found the man guilty, on asking whether anything is known of him, we find that there have been two or three previous convictions. There can be no question that the law is being evaded and that motor lorry drivers do not care two-pence about being fined two or three pounds. Probably the owner, who has made a considerable addition to his earnings by exceeding the speed limit and doing the work in a shorter time, pays the man, and the consequence is that lorries are driven at a speed which is illegal. Whether the law is right or not does not seem to me to matter. It is a law, and being a law it should be enforced.
My noble friend Earl Howe alluded to the casualties on the roads. He instanced a ease which I think must he a very rare one of a boy finding a broken cycle—I think he said on a dust heap—riding it and getting knocked over. That is a very rare case I should think, but I have yet to learn that a man walking carelessly on the high road—which, after all, he has a right to do—commits a capital offence and that if he is knocked over by a motor lorry or any other motor vehicle, it is his fault because he ought to have got out of the way. It reminds me of the old days when railways were first introduced into America. The railways were not fenced and the engine-driver occasionally rang a bell when going through villages and small towns, and there was a notice put up, "Beware of the engine." If the engine driver knocked over anybody that was the fault of the person who was knocked down; he ought not to have been there. I am rather inclined to think—I am not, of course, alluding to my noble friend Earl Howe—that that is the attitude of a great many motorists. They consider that they have a right to go as fast as they

375
wish, and as to stopping or going slower in order that some unfortunate person may cross the road, such an idea never enters their heads.
I would, however, point out to my noble friend that the enormous number of deaths from road accidents—I think I am right in saying that about 7,000 are killed in a year and 200,000 injured—were never equalled before motor cars came on the scene. Therefore there can be no question that these deaths are caused by motor vehicles, and in my humble opinion the position is made worse by the speed of those vehicles. If you run into a thing when you are going at ten miles an hour you may not do very great damage. If you run into the same thing going at sixty miles an hour you do six times as much damage. My own belief is that we shall have to go back to a speed limit—I am sorry for my noble friend Earl Howe—if we wish to prevent the awful slaughter that is going on at the present moment. Whether or not the suggestion of my noble friend Viscount Cecil is practicable I do not know, but I do hope that the Government will try to do something to enforce the law. Motor lorries are subject to a speed limit and the drivers should abide by that limit. I say again that I am not a mechanic, but I would like to suggest to my noble friend Earl Howe, who is a great authority in these matters, that it might be possible to provide that a licence should not be granted to a lorry which can do more than 30 miles an hour. Then there would be no difficulty. The speed limit is 30 miles and the lorry could not do more. That seems to me a very simple thing, and instead of costing money it might even save the lorry owner money because he would get a cheaper engine and would not break the law.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I confess to having a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. It is a deplorable thing to my mind that Parliament should lay down regulations and that those regulations should be habitually broken to the great detriment and very often to the injury and perhaps the death of His Majesty's subjects. I understand that the Government say that the particular form of speedometer suggested by the noble Viscount is not a possible one, but I also understand that the Ministry of
376
Transport are engaged in considering the best form of speedometer. I hope that they will pursue that consideration, and I would like to make a suggestion which possibly may lead to the same result as that which the noble Viscount desires but in an easier way. Why not have upon motor lorries and other vehicles which are subject to a speed limit an instrument which would automatically record the speed? Then if the motor lorry was stopped by a policeman or by anybody else who has authority to stop it, he would be able to find out at once from the record whether or not the speed limit had been exceeded. That would be an easier method of ascertaining the speed and it would not be open to the objections put forward by my noble friend Earl Howe as to the difficulty of finding out at night what was the speed. Perhaps the Ministry will consider that form of speedometer.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, in view of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I see that there is some difficulty in pressing my Amendment at this moment. Though I personally cannot believe that the technical and mechanical difficulties are really so serious, yet I have the greatest respect for his knowledge on this subject and I know that he is really anxious to diminish the slaughter on the roads. I well remember that when the Road Traffic Bill was under discussion he was accused of being a Cassandra on the ground that he prophesied that the Bill would not succeed. The noble Lord who accused him of being a Cassandra forgot that, although Cassandra habitually prophesied, and prophesied evil and was always disregarded, it usually turned out that Cassandra was right in the end. That is what has happened unfortunately in the present case. I agree that your Lordships are not in a position to determine between rival mechanicians. On the other hand I feel most profoundly that in this matter the Ministry of Transport has been incredibly slack and indifferent.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do say so.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): Two speeches on Report !
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry. I can only say that in view of the great difficulties raised and in the hope that the Government will really investigate the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "B licence" to insert" and also of every C licence where such licence is granted in respect of four or more authorised vehicles." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have ventured to put this Amendment on the Paper in the hope that after the representations made in Committee by various noble Lords of great standing the Ministry of Transport may have reconsidered this master. One of the difficulties suggested was that a small owner-driver would not be able to apply-the fair wages clause because he might have only part-time employment for some of his men and he himself could hardly come under the fair wages clause. I therefore submit the Amendment to your Lordships, in the hope that the Government may see their way to trying the fair wages clause, and that this method of exemption for small vehicles may go part of the way to meet their difficulties.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 2, after ("licence") insert ("and also of every C licence where such licence is granted in respect of four or more authorised vehicles").—(Lord de Clifford.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment, and I venture to do so on two grounds. The first is that it is only a fair thing that drivers who are driving vehicles under a C licence, where the licence is for not less than four authorised vehicles, should be paid the same wage as drivers driving vehicles licensed under the A and B sections. A man to-day might be employed by a C licence holder and to-morrow he might be employed quite differently by an A licence holder, in which case his wages would be different. On the other hand, an A licence holder's employee may be discharged and taken on tomorrow by a C licence holder. There again the wages would be different. The other ground on which I support the Amendment is that it would greatly tend to do away with discontent and unrest in the industry. There is no greater
378
source of unrest and discontent in any industry than inequality of wages paid to persons engaged in the same employment and in the same industry. It may be said that there are difficulties still in the way, inasmuch as the Amendment only proposes to deal with a certain section of the C licence holders. If so, those difficulties may easily be set aside by being referred to an industrial tribunal, such as the Industrial Court. That Court has behind it fourteen years' experience, and members of that Court have for many years had, from time to time, to deal with questions under the fair wages clause, and also questions as to the standardisation of wages—questions far more difficult and complicated than questions under the fair wages clause. During that time the decisions given have met with acceptance in every case. In those circumstances I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and should be accepted.
It may be said that if the Amendment is accepted it will cause still greater difficulty, inasmuch as the employees of persons holding A licences, authorised to run less than four vehicles, may fare differently. That is amply met by what the noble Marquess told us in introducing the Bill. I think he told us there was a proposal by which the industry was to set up a body who should deal with all those questions which might arise between employers and employed. This is quite a fit case to come before such a body, and if that body fails there is always the Industrial Court to go to. I confess I voted for the Amendment two days ago which dealt with a similar matter, but after the criticism of the noble Marquess I did so with a certain reluctance. Now with the Amendment in a modified form, I would submit it for your Lordships' acceptance.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the Amendment. I do not wish to reiterate what was said on the Committee stage and the Second Reading, but on the Second Reading I drew the attention of the House to certain cases which I quoted from a news paper. I should like to make a correction. I quoted the case of the firm of Messrs. Garlick, Burrell and Edwards, Limited, and I said that Mr. Edwards was a director of that firm. I have had a letter from Mr. Edwards, and in all

379
fairness to him I should say that he informs me that he is not a director of the company, and is only associated with it in an advisory capacity, which involves no responsibility for administration. I would, therefore, like to withdraw any implication that I made against him. With regard to this Amendment, I would point out that it is not only noble Lords on this side who are anxious about it. In Committee my Amendment was supported from all sides of the House, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter now that the Amendment is moved in a slightly modified form.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Amendment moved by Lord de Clifford is similar in substance to one moved by the noble Earl on the other side of the House, and Lord Kinnoull has expressed the hope that I may be able to accept the Amendment after the facts which have been adduced in support of it. I think the noble Earl is well aware that this matter has been the subject of anxious consideration by the Ministry of Transport, and that the Government have only arrived at their decision after having considered the matter in every one of its details, and also in conjunction, as I shall show later on, with the Ministry of Labour, who naturally are conversant with all these matters. As has already been explained to your Lordships, the question of extending the application of the fair wages clause to the holders of C licences has been most exhaustively and most sympathetically considered by the Government. Discussions have taken place with a large number of important and divergent interests, and if the views of all these cannot he met, they have certainly not been overlooked. The regular hauliers very naturally would prefer to see the requirement applied to ancillary users, and so would some of the trade unions; but other equally important interests, including both the heavy manufacturing industries and widespread distributive organisations, regard the proposal as both impracticable and in principle likely to lead to most undesirable complications and dislocations of their present satisfactory relationships with their employees as a whole.
After carefully considering the matter, in the light of the representations made
380
to them, and after the closest examination of the whole problem by the Minister of Labour, the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be expedient to apply, in the case of the C licence granted to the private carrier, a provision relating to fair wages and conditions of service. We have not, of course, overlooked the necessity of safeguarding, so far as possible, the interests of public safety and of guarding against the risks inherent in the driving of a vehicle by a tired man. But, from this point of view, as your Lordships will remember, Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, already lays down maximum working hours for drivers which will apply to the holders of A, B and C licences alike under the present Bill. The question cannot merely be approached from the angle whether it is logical to treat C licences in the same way as A and B licences in respect of the fair wages provision, on the ground that when he is driving a vehicle the occupation of the worker is the same. In the road haulage industry proper, transport workers constitute the principal grade of workpeople employed, whilst in other industries transport is an occupation ancillary to the main business of the industry which is carried on by the great majority of the workpeople. A very great diversity of conditions prevails, as I will indicate in a moment. But, even on the question of principle I am bound to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, and to point out that the traditional method of fixing wages and conditions in the different industries in this country is a voluntary system of collective bargaining. The fair wages provision introduces a different principle, and the Government cannot ignore the considered opinion of the Ministry of Labour, with their immense and expert knowledge of these problems, that undesirable complications must arise if the wages and conditions of one grade of the workpeople in an industry are subject in effect to compulsory arbitration, whilst those of the rest of the workpeople continue to be regulated by an alternative system, which has been in existence for a long period of time.
But I would mainly ask your Lordships to realise that serious practical difficulties would arise, even if the case of the smallest employers is removed from dis-

381
cussion by virtue of the form which the present Amendment takes. Let me first take some instances from heavy industry, and then illustrate briefly the case to be put by distributors. The matter was closely investigated by my honourable friend the Minister of Transport, from the point of view of ascertaining whether the elimination of the C licence holder with not more than a few vehicles would make it possible to apply the fair wages provision to other C licence holders. He found, however, that in a large number of heavy industries the wholly employed transport worker was the exception rather than the rule, and that the vast majority of drivers were employed only for part of their time in driving lorries, the rest of their time having to be filled in in various ways. It was found that the spare-time occupation of the driver depended on his capacity, and his remuneration depended on the way in which his spare time off the lorry was spent—that the more skilful man, who in his spare time was put on to a more skilful job, would receive a greater remuneration than the man who, in his spare time off the lorry, was put on to only the simplest jobs—and I think I am right in saying that, in a great many of these industries, the organisation between employers and employed for the settling of these wage questions is on such a detailed basis that it almost comes down to settling the individual wage of the individual man in accordance with the particular job that he does in his spare time, and the particular skill that he brings to bear upon it.
For example, the case was brought to the notice of my honourable friend the Minister of Transport of the drivers of lorries for a gas company who in some cases would be able to fit the gas fittings and in other cases would not and, therefore, the remuneration would be different. In some cases the lorry driver in his spare time could on' put on to sweeping floors, and he would be able not only to the lorry but also to do some repair work to it. It became quite plain that as far as these heavy industries were concerned it would only be possible to reach agreement at the expense practically of taking them out of the scope of the provision. As regards distributors, investigation has shown that the elimination of the owner of three or four vehicles would not solve
382
the difficulties. In the first place, it was found that such a provision would not suit the case of the big multiple store. A case has been drawn to the Minister's attention of a store with something like 140 individual shops. Each shop, as far as transport was concerned, was organised on a separate basis and had its own fleet of transport. It had its lorry, its delivery tricycle, and it may have had some form of cart. All those vehicles would have to be included in the licence of the company that controlled the 140 shops, but not one of the shops, although they were organised on a small man basis, would have got the benefit of this four vehicle provision.
My honourable friend also found that this practice of part-time employment, at any rate as far as the wholesaler was concerned, was very widespread. In the case of wholesale butchers, for example, the lorry drivers may spend two hours in the morning picking up meat in the market and distributing it to the shops, some spend the rest of the day as slaughtermen, and are paid accordingly, and others are in the warehouses or doing odd jobs, and are paid a lower wage. Here, again, the four-vehicle limit is inadequate, because the double employment does not depend at all on the size of the fleet, and the part-time employment of the vehicles is dictated by the machinery of the trade. A man with twenty vehicles, just as a man with four, would often employ his drivers on something else, as well as on the pure work of transport, and some exception would have to be made to meet their case. The fair wages provision if applied to C licence holders would therefore need to be hedged about with so many exceptions and limitations that it would become practically unworkable.
These then are the practical as well as the other considerations which have forced us to the conclusion that the step which we are now invited to take would not be right. I can assure noble Lords that no reluctance to advance along the lines which the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, first succeeded in getting Parliament to lay down some forty years ago, has been shown by the Departments concerned, as witness the fair wages clause applied by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to those employed in connection with the operation of public service vehicles—namely, the

383
omnibus and the coach. Only three years ago that was regarded as in itself a very special case and a considerable step to take. We are now proposing the extension of the same principle to the goods haulage industry. Surely it is wise to see how this extension of the principle works before we attempt to force it upon a great range of trading and manufacturing interests who have adduced reasonable grounds for their objection and are sincerely convinced that their relationships with their employees would be widely damaged. I would therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment which is now before you.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, we are very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the very full reply he has given, but we on this side of the House cannot pretend that we are satisfied. The noble Marquess has gone into details, and has detached difficult cases, and there is no question that some difficult eases would arise. Although I have not got the full statistics before me, I am advised that the double employment numbers are a small minority of the whole numbers of drivers covered in this particular Bill. The noble Marquess in the course of his speech really showed us where the opposition came from. I have never suspected that the Minister of Transport or the Ministry of Transport were opposing this Amendment, but have had my suspicions about the Ministry of Labour, and I hope when this clause goes down to another place and there is another opportunity of discussion again to-morrow, the. Minister of Labour will be put up to stand the racket. We feel that we have had a great deal of sympathy from all quarters of the House. We feel, too, that noble Lords like Earl Buxton, Lord Askwith and Lord Amulree (who spoke this afternoon) have got such a very long-standing experience of the working of the wages board, and have such very profound knowledge of it, that we are justified in believing their judgment on this matter to be preferable to the judgment of the Ministry of Labour to-day. We are disappointed that we have not succeeded in getting a more sympathetic reply from the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved in subsection (3), to add the following new paragraph:
(e) No charge for carriage for hire or reward shall be at a rate based upon any ad valorem basis of percentage of value in relation to trading.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring this matter again to the notice of your Lordships in the hope that the suggestion which the noble Marquess mentioned on my Amendment yesterday—namely, that I was biased against the railways and was trying to get an enormous market for the roads—might be met. I am not in this matter concerned with the railways or the roads. I would not be concerned with carriers by sea or air or water or land or under the sea. My aim in this Amendment is to get justice done to the small traders of the country. If it is possible, as it will be under this Bill, for agreements to be based on the ad valorem rates in the case of large concerns—because obviously it is only with large concerns that this particular method of getting rates fixed can be done—small traders are bound to suffer. I hope that the noble Marquess will really consider this matter very seriously.
I am afraid I am too late, but I should like to put before him the point that when these rates are being considered small traders are going to have the utmost difficulty in knowing when they are coming before the tribunal. I submit that the difficulties of small traders are enormous when it comes to finding out what is happening before a tribunal like the Railway Rates Tribunal. There is one other point in regard to this question of dealing with the value of commodities and this method of percentage for the transmission of goods. Under one arrangement which has been made it is possible for the value of these commodities to vary to a very great extent, and for any big store or organisation to lower the value of some particular commodity and automatically get a cut in its rates of transport is obviously inequitable to the trader. With that end in view I hope Government will see their way to justice by treating small traders on an equality, and I hope that no bias in favour of any side of transport will be attributed to me.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 22, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord de Clifford.)
THE MARQESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord may have

385
attached more to the remarks which I made yesterday than I intended to convey. I was venturing to suggest to him that this Bill would in some degree relax the restrictions imposed on the railways, and I said it would be unfortunate if he moved an Amendment which had the effect of retaining these restrictions on the railways while similar restrictions were not imposed on other forms of transport. The Amendment which he has put down on this occasion is apparently in connection with a later Amendment on the Paper in connection with Clause 37. I would venture to say to the noble Lord that it is no part of the scheme of the Bill to exercise any control over the rates charged for the carriage of goods by road. This Amendment has been put down as a condition that may be attached to a B licence—the A licences remaining unaffected. I am bound to say that the Amendment is not appropriate and is really out of place.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess has evaded the main argument, which is whether the method of assessing value as the basis for rates is an equitable one, but in the circumstances I cannot do anything else than ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13:
Power to revoke or suspend licences.
13.—(1) A licence may be revoked or suspended by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted on the ground that any of the conditions of the licence have not been complied with:
Provided that the licensing authority shall not revoke or suspend a licence unless lie is satisfied, after holding a public inquiry, if the holder of the licence requests him so to do, that owing to the-frequency of the breach of conditions of the licence, or to the breach having been committed wilfully, or to the danger to the public involved in the breach, the licence should be revoked or suspended
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "conditions," to insert "on the part of the holder." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment; arises out of a temporary inadvertence on my part during the proceedings yesterday. The noble Marquess who removed these words from the Bill yesterday described it as a drafting Amendment. As a matter of fact I had
386
an Amendment down on the Paper which I am afraid I omitted to move, and I therefore do so now in the form of reinserting these particular words. The question involved in my Amendment is whether the holder of a licence has to forfeit his licence if the employees disobey their instructions. It is quite possible for drivers to do many things that are to be forbidden by this Bill—they may exceed speed limits, they may be guilty of over-loading and of not keeping records, or, more probably, they may he driving during a rest period. All these things may happen on a road in spite of all the holder of the licence may have done to try and maintain control over his men.
Men in charge of lorries are sent long journeys and they may be away the whole day or several days taking up and setting down. During that time it is possible that they may, without the knowledge of the holder of the licence, break some of the conditions that attach to it. The licensed holder will be held responsible and may, in certain events, lose his licence. We would like to know whether the proviso really does give the holder any protection. The holder may believe that the men he employs are entirely trustworthy, and it is always possible he may discover, when the case comes before the licensing authority for inquiry, that the driver has been guilty of a number of offences which he has failed to report to his employer. In such circumstances it might be very hard indeed for an employer to lose his licence through the action of one of his men which might be no fault of his whatever.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, after ("conditions") insert ("on the part of the holder")—.(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Earl that the omission of the words from the Bill did not alter the meaning of the clause at all. The holder of the licence must in any case be responsible for any breach of the conditions attached to his licence. The main object of making the observance of the requirements of the law with regard to fitness, etc., a condition of the licence is to place on the holder of the licence the responsibility for seeing the law is observed. If you did not do that the position would be as

387
it is now. There would be no hold over the owner of the vehicle to ensure that these conditions are observed. I want to make it quite clear to the noble Earl that in the event of the law being broken in these respects there is no definite instruction laid down that the licence should be revoked automatically. That would not be so. It is quite clearly stated in the Bill that in deciding whether he is going to revoke a licence or not the licensing authority must take into consideration certain definite questions. I forget exactly what they are, but it certainly would mean that if the owner could prove quite definitely that it was not his fault his licence would not be suspended or revoked.
EARL HOWE: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
Appeals to Appeal Tribunal in connection with licences.
(9) The Tribunal may, from time to time with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Minister, make rules governing its proceedings, but no such rule shall authorise the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction unless by the full number of its members or their respective deputies. Such rules may provide that an appellant shall be entitled to be heard in person in support of his appeal, or by counsel, solicitor or agent.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, in subsection (9), to substitute "shall" for "may" ["Such rules may provide"]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has asked me to move this Amendment. It relates to a matter which he raised during the Committee stage. It is a very important point because, under the method for the setting up of this Tribunal, the appellant might be debarred from ever being heard in person. I would submit to the noble Marquess that there is a precedent under the Act which he has so often quoted. It is Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord de Clifford.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I support this Amendment? What is the
388
position? The position is that any person who is aggrieved by a certain decision, as specified in Clause 15, has an absolute right to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. Then subsection (9) of Clause 15 says that the Tribunal may make rules for its procedure. It has this strange provision that such rules may provide that an appellant should be entitled to be heard in person in support of his appeal or by counsel and solicitor. It would be a, very strange thing if a man who is given a right of appeal by Act of Parliament to a Tribunal were not entitled to be heard, and therefore I would suggest to the Government that instead of "may" the word should be "shall". What is the objection to saying the rule shall provide? It is only natural justice that the man who is entitled to appeal may appear by himself or his solicitor.
My noble friend has pointed out that there is a precedent, and the precedent is in Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which says:
"Any person who, being the holder of … licence … feels aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Commissioners to grant or by the suspension or revocation of such a licence … may by notice in writing to the Commissioners require them to reconsider the matter …"
The section then goes on to say that on the reconsideration he shall be "entitled to be heard either personally or by his representative."
I venture to think that that is an exact parallel. The man is given a right to appeal to the Commissioners, then he is given an absolute right to be heard either personally or by his representatives. I cannot see that the Appeal Tribunal, in making rules, should feel aggrieved if they were told the man had a right to be heard. The only other observation I should make would be this. It is quite possible the Tribunal would not do an injustice, but, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham and, I dare say, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, know, there have been a good many cases in the Law Courts in which there has been much discussion and much money spent in deciding whether "may" means "shall." Why should we spend money on a matter of this sort, when we can set it right in one minute in this House? Therefore I would earnestly beg the noble Marquess, without any reflection upon the Tribunal, to put in words which will secure justice to the appellant.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I stand corrected by my noble friend Lord de Clifford when he tells me that in the 1930 Act there is a statement that the Tribunal "I have not had an opportunity of finding that out for myself, but I accept the correction. I find it difficult naturally to resist an Amendment which receives such weighty support from my noble friend Lord Danesfort. I think that he has forgotten one particular point, however. The term "agent" is very wide and the Tribunal may not consider it desirable to give a right of audience to anybody who may describe himself as an agent for the party. Tie main object of using the word "may" instead of the word "shall" is to enable the Tribunal to define more closely the kind of agent to whom they are prepared to give the right of audience. For example, under the Railways Act, the Tribunal is only required to give a right of audience to a representative of a party who is "in their permanent employment." A sufficiently clear indication is given to the Tribunal without the substitution of the word "shall" for "may." If the substitution were made it would be necessary either to strike out the word "agent" or to elaborate a complicated definition of the word for the purposes the clause, and this might in itself hamper the proper exercise and discretion on the part of the Tribunal. For these reasons I fear think. Amendment cannot be accepted.
LORD DANESFORT: Would your Lordships permit me to call attention to the words of Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act where it is provided that he shall be entitled to be heard personally or by his representative? Perhaps the noble Marquess might adopt those words.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16:
Records as to hours of work, journeys, loads, &c.
16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of regulations made under this section, the holder of a licence shall keep or cause to be kept, in accordance with the regulations, current records showing—

(a) as respects every person employed by him as a driver or statutory attendant of an authorised vehicle, the times at which that person commenced and ceased work and particulars of his intervals of rest and the like information as respects himself when acting as such a driver or attendant;

390

(b) as respects every journey of a vehicle on which goods are carried under the licence, particulars of the journey and of the greatest weight of goods carried by the vehicle at any one time (luring the period to which the record relates and the description and destination of the goads carried,

and the regulations may make provision for requiring drivers of authorised vehicles to carry the prescribed documents and to make the prescribed entries therein.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection 1, after the second "carried," to insert "and of the highest speeds attained." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my Amendment is to include in the matters which are to be recorded in respect of every journey of a vehicle the highest speeds attained on that journey. I cannot pretend that this is likely to be of the same value as the Amendment which I tried to induce the Government to accept just now, but I think it would be of some value to have a statement made quite definitely as to the highest speeds attained. I cannot believe that there is any difficulty in doing that. If the driver is driving carefully, knowing he is not to exceed a speed limit, he ought to know the speed he is going. In normal cases, I take it, there is a speedometer, but whether there is a speedometer or not he must have some means of knowing whether he is breaking the law or not. He must have some means of knowing his speed, otherwise there is no use in having a speed limit. If he knows it why should he not record it as part of the log of the journey? He has to record the extreme weight he has carried and why should he not record this as an essential factor in knowing whether the law is being obeyed? I venture to suggest it is an extremely reasonable proposal and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 26, after ("carried") insert ("and of the highest speeds attained").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, as I have already indicated in the case of the Amendment which was moved by the noble Viscount a few minutes ago, the object which he has in view can be best attained if the practical difficulties can be overcome by a. recording speedometer. The noble Vis-

391
count brushed aside the efforts which are being made to that end, but I can only repeat that those efforts are being made, and that my honourable friend is taking considerable interest in the manufacture of a speedometer which will fulfil the requirements which he wants and which, I think, are in the mind of the noble Viscount. I am given to understand that it would be an impossible task for the driver to record the highest speeds which are attained on a particular journey. I am also given to understand—and I agree with this suggestion—that if the driver were constantly watching his speedometer he could not give proper attention to his driving and there would be a certain element of danger. If his attention was fixed on the speedometer it would be taken off the dangers of the road. I am inclined to think that what we can hope to achieve is that the driver will automatically know the speed at which he is driving which, I think, is the case now, although probably on far too many occasions the speed limit is exceeded. There are many powers in this Bill in excess of any powers granted before for the suspension of licences, and we hope that that will achieve the object we have in view—the better regulation of traffic on the road and control of the speed of vehicles.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), before "the description and destination of goods carried," to insert "as respects goods carried otherwise than under a C licence." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to relieve a C licence holder of the obligation to keep records of the description and destination of the goods that are carried on the vehicle. He will be required under paragraph (a) to keep records of the driver's time and under paragraph (b) of the journey and maximum weight carried, but as he is a, C licence holder we cannot see that any useful purpose is served by making him fill in these other particulars. The C licence holder, I would like to remind your Lordships, is entitled to his licence for as many vehicles as he likes. Records of the description and the destination of the goods carried may possibly be useful in the case of holders of A or B licences when the licensing authorities
392
are considering whether A or B licence holders provide facilities in excess of requirements, or whether B licence holders carry goods to or from places not authorised, but we think that in the case of C licence holders the keeping of records as to destination and description of goods would be a waste of time. I therefore submit that in order to simplify the returns and lessen the work involved as much as possible the Minister might make this small concession.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, after the first ("and") insert ("as respects goods carried otherwise than under a C licence").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should naturally very much like to meet the noble Earl, but I must say that information as to the description and destination of the goods carried is really wanted even in the case of C licence holders to check such matters as the loading of the vehicle and the distance travelled against the time allowed for the journey, in order to ascertain the speed at which the vehicle travelled. I would like to remind the noble Earl that subsection (3) provides that, subject to the provisions of the regulations—which will be made only after consultation with the Transport Advisory Council—the licensing authority may dispense with the observance of certain of the requirements as to records in suitable cases. That gives the licensing authority a certain latitude in that respect. He will in appropriate cases be in a position to exempt the holder of any kind of licence from certain provisions of this particular subsection. The point I really want to make is that the real test in regard to this matter is not whether a man holds an A or a B or a C licence, but rather the type of work that he does. It is the type of work that he does that makes it difficult to fulfil certain conditions required in the subsection, and not the fact that he is holding a C licence. Therefore I venture to say that this Amendment would not really meet the case which the noble Viscount has in view. There is this provision which enables a licensing authority to use discretion. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to paragraph (b) in subsection (1), "otherwise than under a C licence." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, who put this Amendment on the Paper, is not able to be in his place this afternoon and ho has asked me to move it. I must confess that I am not very well acquainted with the purpose of it, but he has sent me a letter in which he says that the last nine words in this paragraph are very objectionable from the point of view of the C licence holder. Particulars of the description and destination of the goods carried may be needed for determining the question of redundancy, but redundancy cannot arise in connection with a C licence. He therefore put down this Amendment and expresses the hope that it may be accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 29, after ("carried") insert ("otherwise than under a C licence").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think this is more or less the same point, and I am afraid I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to emit from subsection (1) the words "and the regulations may make provision for requiring drivers of authorised vehicles to carry the prescribed documents and to make the prescribed entries therein." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to leave out words which would require the drivers of vehicles themselves to keep the records. The contention is that the driver of a vehicle is a most unsuitable person to keep the records of what is vehicle is doing. He is not a chartered accountant or a clerk, and his duty is to drive, and we submit that the actual keeping of papers and records on the vehicle itself is undesirable. They may be damaged or obliterated by dirt or oil, or something of that sort Speaking for myself, I should have thought that a much more suitable person to keep the records would be the holder of the licence. Our contention is that it should be left to the employers to see that the records are kept, and that that duty should not be imposed upon the drivers.
There is an point. The driver's job is to driv vehicle, and a great many of you: ordships have drawn attention to tigue caused to drivers by long of driving. Driving for long pericie fatiguing job. The actual muscular action involved, though heavier on a lorry, is well within the competence of any reasonably fit adult. The fatigue that a man really suffers is fatigue of the brain, and I submit that when a man comes in tired from driving he ought not to be asked to sit down and write up records. It is a job which I should not like to have to do, nor do I think many of your Lordships would care for it in similar circumstances. I submit that the person to keep the records is the holder of the licence, and that we ought to try as far as we can to lighten the job of the driver, who will, of course, have to give the required information to the holder of the licence.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, leave out lines 30 to 32.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I support this Amendment? Perhaps among your Lordships I am one of the few who have actually had to keep records on a vehicle, and also to keep them while on the move for a considerable period. I can assure you that it is practically impossible to keep those records clean and neat. To make it at all satisfactory I think the person keeping them should be the employer. It is practically impossible on a. moving vehicle, which has oil and petrol on it and being used on it, to keep records at all clean or neat.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I venture to say that there are certain details with regard to the periods of driving, and the periods of rest, the times at which stages of the journey are completed, and intermediate loads taken up, which can only be entered by the driver, who alone knows the facts. I want to point out that it is not intended that the driver shall have to enter all the details. There is no provision in the Bill which makes that obligatory at all. In fact understand that the regulations probably will provide that the responsibility for certain of the entries, such as the load taken up at the point of origin, should

395
rest with the employer, but I think that in view of the fact, that there are certain details which can only be recorded by the driver himself, it would be impossible to leave these particular lines out of the Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether this means that the driver will have to keep fair copy records of what has been happening, in connection with speeds and times of the journey, and so on, or will it be sufficient if the driver keeps a record in the rough, the employer being responsible for producing a fair copy for the benefit of the licensing authority?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question at once, but I will make inquiries.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, to leave out the word "the" ["the prescribed entries therein"j in the last line of subsection (1), and insert "any." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Further powers of examiners and powers of police constables.
18.—(1) An examiner may at any time, on production if so required of his authority, require the person in charge of any goods vehicle to produce, and permit him to inspect and copy, any document which by or by regulations made under this Part of this Act or the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is required to be carried on, or by the driver of, the vehicle and for that purpose may detain the vehicle for such time as is required for the inspection and copying and, if any person, when required by an examiner so to do, fails to produce to the examiner any such document as aforesaid, or to permit him to inspect or copy any such document, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act.
(2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall apply in relation to a police constable as they apply in relation to an examiner, except that it shall not be necessary for a police constable wearing uniform to produce any authority.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out
396
"or the Road Traffic Act, 1930." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a manuscript Amendment, which must be taken in conjunction with a later Amendment in subsection (2), and makes the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Earl Howe and others unnecessary. The point of their Amendment is that if a driver of a goods vehicle is asked by an examiner to show his driving licence or certificate of insurance issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the driver happens not to have them with him he should be allowed five days to produce them at a police station as is the case when in similar circumstances a driver is asked for the production of these documents by a police officer. The later Government amendment, after subsection (2), places an examiner in the same position as a police constable in respect of the power to ask for the production of a driving licence or certificate of insurance and the exercise of this power by an examiner will be subject to the same limitations as those applying to the power in the matter of a police constable.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("or the Road Traffic Act, 1930").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following proviso in subsection (1):
"Provided that if within five clays after an examiner has required the production of a driver's licence or a certificate of insurance issued under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the driver produces the licence or the certificate, as the case may be, in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection by reason only of his failure to produce the licence or certificate to the examiner."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point of this Amendment is met by that of the noble Marquess, and I should like to thank him.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) An examiner may at any time, on production if so required of his authority, exercise, in the case of goods vehicles all such powers as are under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, exerciseable by a police constable, with respect to the production of documents and the giving of information by persons driving motor vehicles."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 3, at end, insert the said new subsection (3).—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Variation of traffic areas.
27.—(1) Whereas it is expedient that the existing traffic areas under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in England should be varied—

(a) by the abolition of the Southern Traffic Area and the transfer of the areas constituting it to other traffic areas; and

(b) by the transfer of part of the East Midland Traffic Area to the Eastern Traffic Area:

Now therefore, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four (in this section referred to as "the said date ")—

(i) England shall he divided into the Traffic Areas specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and those traffic areas shall consist of the several areas respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule;

(ii) the said First Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and references to that Schedule in any enactment shall be construed accordingly;

(iii)the offices of the Traffic Commissioners for the Southern Traffic Area shall be abolished.

(2) The Minister may by order make such consequential and incidental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of traffic areas effected by this section and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision may be made in the order with respect to—

(a) the effect as from the said date, of licences previously issued or backed, and consents previously given, by the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected;

(b) the effect of applications for licences or consents made before the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected, the Commissioners to whom applications relating to any such area may be made between the date of the order and the said date, and the Commissioners by whom and the places at which any such applications as aforesaid may be heard, either before or after the said date;

(c) the continuance of appeals pending at the said date against decisions of the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected; and

(d) the recovery of any sums due at the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished.

(3) Any order made by the Minister under Section sixty-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 for varying the number or limits of traffic areas may, contain such consequential and incidental provisions, including provisions with respect to any of the matter mentioned in the last preceding subsection, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of areas to be effected by the order.
(9) For subsection (3) of the said Section sixty-two, there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
"(3) An order made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a. Resolution passed by each House of Parliament".
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 27. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause makes a new allocation of areas, and proposes to abolish the Southern Traffic Area. I raised the matter in Committee, and since then it has come to my knowledge that there is a very real and very great opposition to the proposal. The Government are aware of the fact. They cannot in fact deny that the operators have complained very bitterly about it. At an earlier stage the municipal authorities were against it, but were turned down. Last Wednesday representatives of a large number of operators in the area attended as a deputation on the Minister of Transport, and they also were refused. The South Eastern Area at present includes Kent, Surrey and Essex, and the Southern Area Hampshire, Dorset and Oxford. The proposal, I believe, really is to add Hampshire to the South Eastern Area, Dorset and Wiltshire to the South Western or Western Area, and Oxfordshire to the Midland Area, which has its headquarters at Nottingham. The present headquarters are at Reading, and people affected in Oxfordshire will be expected to have dealings with an area centred right away at Nottingham. That is extremely inconvenient to them.
The only explanation given by the Government so far in support of the abolition of the Southern Area is administrative convenience and economy. With regard to administrative convenience, the Southern Area was most conveniently served from its headquarters at Reading, and is obviously much more convenient for operators than Nottingham, Bristol and London, where it is proposed to distribute the work. It is supposed that the real reason for the change is probably that the

399
London Passenger Transport Act transferred a considerable part of the South Eastern Area to the London Area and the Metropolitan Traffic Commission. For some reason it seems to be thought that the Traffic Commissioner of the South Eastern Area ought to have more work to do, and accordingly the greater part of the Southern Area is to be added to the South Eastern Area. On the grounds of economy this change does not seem likely to have much justification, and the Bill is likely to make an enormous increase in the work of the individual Traffic Commissioners. It is thought that they will probably have to deal with the licensing of 400,000 vehicles, of which 100,000 will probably require an A or B licence, and these applications may be subject to objection, and will certainly require very careful investigation to see whether the application should be granted.
The Government acknowledge these facts, I think, and make provision for them by the clause which they have inserted in the Bill in Committee, providing for the appointment of Deputy Commissioners and so on; but in the circumstances it does not seem that there is any real justification for the plea of economy. I submit therefore that the convenience of the operators concerned should also be studied. For the first time we are going to bring the whole of the motor transport industry into the ambit of an Act which is really very largely experimental in character, and I should have thought it ought to have been possible for the Government, at any rate at first, to have seen how the Act was likely to work before making so great a change. At any rate, I know that the operators who are affected feel very strongly about this, and have already asked the Ministry to have regard to their objection, but so far they have been unlucky.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 27.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this whole matter has been very carefully considered by the Ministry, and I do not think that the apprehension evinced by the noble Earl and the operators who are affected by this clause is really well founded. Under the Road Traffic Act., 1930, the Traffic Commissioners are
400
directed, if they think fit, to hold public sittings at such places in any part of their area as appears to them convenient. The Chairmen of the Traffic Commissioners are the licensing authorities under this Bill. It has been the practice of the Commissioners under the Act of 1930 to hold public sittings at different centres in their areas, and to consult as far as possible in this respect the convenience of operators, and I can assure your Lordships that the same practice will be followed under this Bill. For example, it is absolutely certain that the Chairman of the South Eastern Traffic Commissioners will sit both at Reading and at Portsmouth in order to deal with applications from operators in those quarters. Equally I feel certain that the Traffic Commissioners for the East Midland Area will sit at Oxford as well as at Nottingham.
EARL HOWE: What happens in the case of appeals?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The Appeal Tribunal under this Bill, I understand, can hold sittings in any part of the country, and I suppose they will hold sittings where it is most convenient.
EARL HOWE: Then we are to understand from that that the convenience of the operators will, as far as possible, be studied?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am certain of that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 29:
Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain roads.
29.—(1) The Minister, after consultation with the Transport Advisory Council, may by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or access to premises or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on all roads of any such class as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that it is desirable that such an order should be made, and may, from time to time, after such consultation as aforesaid, by order revoke, vary, amend, or add to the provisions of such an order.
A prohibition or restriction under this subsection may be imposed either generally or in relation to any class or description of vehicle, or to the use of vehicles for any purpose, or to the weight of vehicles, whether laden or unladen, and for the purposes of this subsection the Minister may classify roads in any manner he thinks

401
fit, having regard to their character or situation, or the nature of the traffic to which they are suited, and may determine in what class any particular road shall be included.
(4) The powers of making orders restricting the use of vehicles on specified roads which under subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, are exerciseable by the Minister on the application of a council to which that section applies shall be exerciseable by any such council without previous reference to the Minister and the power of making an order for the revocation, variation or amendment of any such order for the time being in force (whether made by the Minister or by the council) shall be exerciseable either by the Minister under subsection (3) of the said section or by the council:
Provided that no order made by a council under this subsection shall be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister.
Any references in the said Section forty-six to an order made thereunder, or to the council on whose application an order was made, shall be construed as respectively including a reference to an order made under this subsection and a reference to the council by which an order was made.
(5) The Minister, if he confirms any such order as aforesaid. may confirm it either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm an order until twenty-eight days at least have elapsed since the making of the order and before confirming it, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the order and, if he thinks fit, may cause a public inquiry to be held.
(6) Regulations may be made for prescribing the procedure ix) be followed in connection with the making of orders by a council under this section and the confirmation thereof and the holding of inquiries for the purposes of Section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by this section, and subsection (5) of the said Section forty-six and the schedule therein referred to shall cease to have effect.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "vehicles," to insert "defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors and heavy motor cars." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very important point. I raised it yesterday and I was compelled to divide the House upon it. I propose to make the clause apply solely to large or heavy vehicles. As the clause is at present drawn it applies to every single vehicle that uses the road—horse vehicles and bicycles as well as heavy motor vehicles. The noble Earl told me
402
yesterday that the words "large or heavy" are so indefinite that they could not be translated into practice. The Amendment tries to meet that point by referring to heavy motor vehicles by the definitions contained in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 2. The effect of this would be to limit the prohibition to the following classes of vehicles:—Unladen weight, heavy locomotives, exceeding 11½ tons; light locomotives, between 11½ tons and 7¼ tons; motor tractors drawing but not carrying a load, not exceeding 7¼ tons; and heavy motor cars exceeding 2½tons. These appear to be the larger heavy vehicles with which the clause is to deal as at present drawn. The classification is that which is used for licensing purposes, and nothing could be more definite.
The vehicles excluded from the operation of the orders made under this part of the clause would be motor cars, private cars, and light goods vehicles, motor cycles, horse-drawn vehicles and pedal cyclists. They could be dealt with, if necessary, in the case of particular roads, under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which is to be amended by this clause. 1 listened with the greatest care to the explanation given by the noble Earl with regard to this clause yesterday. I have studied the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in another place, but so far the Ministry of Transport have given absolutely no explanation as to why they want to bring motor cars, motor cycles, horse-drawn vehicles, and pedal cycles within the ambit of a Bill dealing with heavy motor vehicles. I submit to your Lordships that there is a point of considerable substance. The administration of the Ministry of Transport to-day is, of course, one we all look lip to it gives us no cause for anxiety, but I would ask your Lordships to consider whether political conditions in this country are so absolutely stable that this happy state of affairs will always continue. At some stage in the future, when the political complexion of the Government of the day is different to what it is now, would not these be very large powers to give to a Government Department' The Minister to-day can speak for his Department, but he cannot bind his successors in office, and I submit to your Lordships that we are indeed going a very long way on the

403
legislative road when we bar horse-drawn vehicles, pedal cycles, and motor cars from using the roads of the country.
I would submit that since motor taxation was introduced the proceeds have realised more than £1,000,000,000. The people who own these vehicles have paid an immense sum to the Government of the country, and I feel that to go so far as to give the Minister power to bar large areas of the roads to these classes of vehicles is to grant him very large powers indeed. Of course it is said there are safeguards—affirmative Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament. These may or may not be adequate safeguards, but why does the Minister want to include these relatively harmless vehicles within the ambit of this Bill? I submit, as I did yesterday, that the local authorities are by far the best judges, and they have all the powers needed under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 3, after ("vehicles") insert ("defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1030, as heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors and heavy motor cars").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Amendment is substantially the same as that which the noble Earl moved on the Committee stage yesterday, and which your Lordships saw fit to reject by sixty votes to eleven. I agree that the words he uses on this occasion are more precise than the words he suggested during the Committee stage, but at the same time all the arguments I used yesterday obtain just as much in regard to the words he now proposes as they did in the case of the words he originally put forward. I do not think it is fair to say the Bill gives the Minister power to make these regulations. There are certain definite safeguards, as I pointed out quite clearly on the Committee stage. If he wishes to make any order of this kind, that order has to be placed on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and it has to receive an affirmative Resolution of both Houses before it can take effect. That is a very strong safeguard indeed against the misuse of these powers by the Minister. I venture to say that in order to maintain uniformity and to maintain the words that are constantly used
404
in relation to these powers, either local powers or general powers, your Lordships should reject the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the Minister to say in one word why he wants to include these particular vehicles?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 30:
Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain bridges.
(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "weight" means weight laden;

(b) the weight transmitted by a vehicle, to any transverse strip of the road surface five feet in breadth shall be taken as being an "axle weight" of that vehicle; and

(c) "placed in a proper position" means placed in such a position either on or near the bridge or on or near the road leading to the bridge as to be visible at a reasonable distance from the bridge to the drivers of vehicles approaching it;

and for the purpose of the provisions of this section relating to axle weight an articulated vehicle shall be deemed to be a single vehicle.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), to insert "and for the purposes of this paragraph a vehicle and any trailer drawn thereby shall he deemed to be a single vehicle." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next which immediately follows in my name are Amendments to deal with a point connected with articulated vehicles which was raised in Committee by my noble friend, Lord Clwyd. An Amendment moved by him was then accepted and now appears at the end of subsection (4) in the following form:
"and for the purpose of the provisions of this section relating to axle weight, an articulated vehicle shall be deemed to be a single vehicle."
This Amendment would have required a definition of "articulated vehicle." My Amendment now proposed at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) has the same effect as my noble friend's Amendment, and at the same time removes the necessity for a definition of "articulated vehicle."
Amendment moved—
At the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) after (" vehicle ") insert (" and for the purposes of this paragraph a vehicle and

405
any trailer drawn thereby shall be deemed to be a single vehicle").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I just rise to say- that the alternative words which have been proposed fully meet the case which I had in view, and I desire to thank the, noble Marquess for his consideration in the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "five feet" and insert "three feet six inches." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House in moving this manuscript Amendment. The reason why it is not on the Paper is that in the hurry which naturally existed after the close of our proceedings yesterday it was omitted. I am happy to say this is the last Amendment I shall be moving on the Bill, and I would apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to enable the Government to say whether they have been able to reconsider the point which I submitted yesterday with regard to the transverse strip on bridges. The transverse strip at present is 2 feet, and the Government are taking power in this Bill to extend that measurement to 5 feet. As a compromise we suggest 3 feet 6 inches, because the maximum space of any bogie on a six-wheeled vehicle is about 4 feet 2 inches. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("five feet") and insert ("three feet six inches").—(Earl Howe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is a very highly technical one, but I am sure he will be able to understand if I give him a technical answer. I a in given to understand that the report which the noble Earl quoted from yesterday, and which I think was handed to him by Sir Alexander Gibb, really dealt entirely with very small spans that would normally be classed as culverts. There are very few of these culverts, and if they are weak they could readily be reconstructed. The large majority of privately-owned bridges are of more than 20-ft. span, and the
406
majority of the railway-owned bridges are of 26-ft, span and upwards. No mention was made of the 14-ft. span. Sir Alexander can be taken to agree with those who are advising me from the technical standpoint that for longer spans the effect of a weight borne on the two rear axles of a six-wheeled vehicle is nearly the same as that of the same weight carried by a single axle.
I should like to emphasise a point which I made in the debate that the treatment of the two rear axles of a six-wheeled vehicles as two separate axles would operate to the disadvantage of the majority of road users. The only effect would be that bridge authorities would be compelled to put on their bridges more restrictive notices than would be necessary under the provisions of the clause as it stands, as they would be bound to contemplate the possibility of six-wheeled vehicles crossing their bridges. If the 14-ft. span mentioned in the report is taken—although this is by no means a representative span—then, although the 5-ft. strip might result in the permissible load on the rear axle of a six-wheeled vehicle being reduced by nearly 18 per cent., the acceptance of the Amendment would result in the permissible load on the rear axle of a four-wheeled vehicle being reduced by 39 per percent., for bridges of longer span the 18 per cent. referred to would be substantially reduced and the 39 per cent. would be increased to more than 45 per cent. In those circumstances I think the noble Earl will agree with me that in his own interest he had better leave the Bill as it is at present.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, after the explanation which the noble Marquess has given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (3) leave out ("and for the purpose of the provisions of this section relating to axle weight an articulated vehicle shall be deemed to be a single vehicle").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37:
Right of railway company, with approval of Rates Tribunal, to make agreed charges for the carriage of merchandise.
(10) Notwithstanding anything in this section, any port or harbour authority, dock company, or authority owning and working docks, which has reason to believe that any railway company is by an agreed charge placing the port, harbour, or dock of the authority or dock company at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other port, harbour, or dock to or from -which traffic is or may be carried by means of the lines of the railway company, either alone or in conjunction with those of other railway companies, may make complaint thereof to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall have the like jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of any such complaint as they have to hear and determine the subject matter of a complaint under Section thirty of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1838, and Section twenty-seven of that Act and Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall apply with respect to any such complaint.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "the subject matter of a complaint under Section thirty of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and Section twenty-seven of that Act and Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854" and insert "a complaint of a contravention of Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended by subsequent Acts, and Section twenty-seven of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 4, leave out from ("determine") to ("shall") in line 8, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Interpretation of Part II]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("any") and insert ("a").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Inquiries by Minister]:
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 33, after ("Minister") insert ("of Transport (in this section referred to as the Minister')").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, I now beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Londondery.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Report stage.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I think it would be courteous if I told your Lordships what is the intention of the promoters of this Bill. The position is this. The Bill was read a second time in this House, it went to a Select Committee who amended it, it was considered in Committee of the Whole House, and it has partially gone through the Report stage. What we felt was that even if the Bill went through all its stages in this House it would be quite impossible for it to go further in this Session, and therefore we came to the conclusion that it would not be right to ask your Lordships to spend any more time on the Bill. As a matter of fact there are only relatively small points still to be settled. Therefore, as the intention is early, or some time in the course of next Session, to reintroduce the Bill, in this House or to introduce it in another place, in the circumstances I have mentioned I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.
Order of the Day discharged and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

RULES OF DEBATE: MOVER'S RIGHT OF REPLY.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now

409
adjourn. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, wishes to raise a point.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Viscount Hailisham.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, it is a small point and I do not think it will take more than two or three minutes to explain. A trifling incident occurred in the course of the discussions to-day which led me to consider the Rules of the House. I had moved an Amendment, the Minister had replied, I saw no one rising to continue the debate, and I rose to reply, and replied. My noble friend Lord Howe, in perfect exercise of his rights, continued the debate. When I desired to answer the arguments, which seemed to me interesting and powerful, that my noble friend had used, I was informed that I was out of Order on the ground that I had exhausted my right to reply. I accept that because I am told that is the custom of the House. I am bound to admit on reading the Standing Order that I should not have thought it was quite clear. What it says is:
"No Lord is to speak twice to any Bill, at one time of reading it, or to any other proposition, except the mover in reply …"
I should have thought the intention of that was to give the mover the right of answering any new arguments raised, otherwise it would be possible for a very perfunctory observation to be made from the Front Bench or elsewhere, the mover to reply, and then the real argument against, his case could be produced and he would have no answer. I venture to submit that in circumstances there ought to be some kind of understanding among your Lordships that as far as possible at any rate no new argument should be advanced after the mover has replied, otherwise he really is put in a position which is, according to his rights under the Standing Order, not quite a fair one.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I suppose it is my duty perhaps to say a word in answer to the observations of my noble friend. I think that the practice of the House agrees with what he informs your Lordships is the understanding which has prevailed, and which to my mind is in fact the meaning of the
410
Rule, that no Lord shall speak twice except the mover in reply. I think that means that one person may speak twice and no one else may speak more than once. I think that is the understanding which has always prevailed, but it is perfectly true that if that Rule be strictly adhered to then it seems to follow that any one who has a desire to speak upon a Motion ought to speak before the mover exercises his right of reply, otherwise his right of reply in fact is taken from him so far as relates to any fresh matter introduced after he has spoken a second time. Again, I think that I am right in stating that the understanding in your Lordships' House has been that that Rule shall be observed. I know there have been exceptions. I myself have sometimes suffered under them, and I have been conscious of the disadvantage to which the noble Viscount refers. I think it ought to be understood that if any one wants to speak on a Motion he should exercise his right to say whatever he desires to say before the mover replies, the mover of course giving a sufficient opportunity to any noble Lord to rise before he gets up for the second time. In this House we are never too strict, and if fresh matter is raised we have a habit of granting a certain latitude when it is asked for.
On the particular occasion this evening I think we had raised no objection to my noble friend's further speech until he began to make some observations about the Ministry of Transport which did not seem to me to have any direct relation to the observations which he was seeking an opportunity of dealing with. It was only then that one or two of us ventured to suggest that he was transgressing the order of the House. I think it is very useful that the matter should have been raised because it is desirable that the practice which has prevailed should be adhered to and that noble Lords who desire to take part in a discussion on any Motion should take part in such a way as to enable the mover of the Motion to deal with the arguments at the end of the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.