Lords Sitting of 17 July 1934

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GAME BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to game, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Bayford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (EASTWOOD LANDS) ORDER, 1934.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KING'S LYNN ELECTRICITY (EX- TENSION) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NEWMARKET ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Com-
580
mittee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILFORD HAVEN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MID SOUTHERN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SALE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
General speed limit of thirty miles per hour in built-up areas.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a road in a built-

581
up area at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour between the hours of five in the morning and midnight.
For the purposes of this section a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area—

(a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon, unless a direction that it shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section; or

(b) if a direction that it shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section;

and not otherwise.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence under Section ten of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act) and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) The Minister may by order increase or reduce the rate of speed fixed by subsection (1) of this section (either as originally enacted or as varied by an order under this subsection) as the limit of speed to be observed under this section, or vary the times thereby fixed as the times between which that limit is to be observed:
Provided that an order under this subsection shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
(4) A direction that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area notwithstanding that a system of street lighting is provided thereon, or that a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area notwithstanding that such a system of lighting as aforesaid is not provided thereon, may be given—

(a) as respects any length of road elsewhere than in the London Traffic Area as constituted by the London Traffic Act, 1924, by the local authority, by means of an order made by them after giving public notice of their intention to make an order under this subsection and after consultation with the chief officer of Police and with the consent of the Minister;

(b) as respects any length of road in the said London Traffic Area, by means of an order made by the Minister after giving public notice of their intention to make an order under this subsection and after consultation with the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee;

and a direction so given may be revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner.
(5) If the Minister is satisfied that the local authority have failed to give a direction that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up urea in a case where such a direction ought to have
582
been given, or have failed to revoke a direction that a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area in a case in which the direction ought to have been revoked, he may make an order giving or revoking the direction, as the case may be:
Provided that before exercising his powers under this subsection, the Minister shall give to the local authority notice of his intention of exercising those powers and, if within such period as may be specified in the notice the local authority represent to him that the direction ought not to be given, or to be revoked, as the case may be, he shall hold a local inquiry and the provisions of Section forty-seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall apply in relation to this inquiry as if it were an inquiry held for the purposes of that Act.
(6) An order giving a direction under the last foregoing subsection may be revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner.
(7) It shall be the duty of the local authority—

(a) to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister for the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the places whore a length of road begins, and ceases, to be a road in a built-up area, or as to a direction being in force as respects a length of road that it shall be deemed to be, or not to be, a road in a built-up area; and

(b) to alter or remove traffic signs as may be requisite in order to give effect to such directions as aforesaid, either in consequence of the making of an order by the Minister under subsection (5) of this section or otherwise;

and if the local authority make default in executing any works required for the performance of the duty imposed upon them by this subsection, the Minister may himself execute the works and recover summarily as a civil debt from the local authority the expenses incurred by him in so doing.
(8) The power conferred on the Minister by subsection (2) of Section forty-eight of the principal Act to prescribe the size, colour, and type of traffic signs shall include power to make regulations providing for the illumination during the hours of darkness during which a speed limit is to be observed under this section of traffic signs to be erected under this section, or for the attachment of reflectors thereto.
(9) In this section the expression "local authority" means, as respects any length of road in the following areas, the following authorities respectively, that is to say in the administrative County of London as regards the City of London the Common Council of the City of London and as regards a metropolitan borough the council thereof, in a county borough in a non-county borough possessing a separate police force or having a population, according to

583
the last census, for the time being of over twenty thousand, and in an urban district having such a population as aforesaid, the council thereof, and elsewhere the council of the county.
(10) This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nine-teen hundred and thirty-nine, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines:
Provided that on the expiration of this section subsection (2) of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, shall apply as if this section had been repealed by another enactment taking effect at the time of the expiration thereof.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a road in a built-up area" and insert "any restricted road." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the rather extraordinary situation which is going to be brought about by the Bill, so far as I can understand the Minister's proposals. There are certain areas in which you are going to have street lamps as the distinguishing sign of areas in which a thirty-mile speed limit is in force. There are to be certain areas where the street lamps, so to speak, do not quite fit, in which case the Minister is going to put up a sign to say that a limit is in force. There are going to be other areas where street lamps exist but where there ought not to be a limit, in which case there will be another sort of sign to show that there is no speed limit. Speaking from the point of view of a motor driver of some, experience, I can assure your Lordships that the multiplication of signs contemplated by this Bill and embodied in motor car legislation at the present time- has in it all the seeds of danger.
I submit to your Lordships that it really is absolutely impossible to drive a motor vehicle with due regard to public safety if you have to go along the road looking for lights at the sides of the street controlling the traffic, very often with a background of coloured lamps behind them, and they themselves not at all easy to see in the bright sunlight. If, in addition, you are going to have pedestrian crossings, marked with a "C," which you also have to spot; if you are also going to have signs under this Bill to show where a speed limit exists and other signs to show where no speed limit exists; and if you are going to have the ordinary signs denoting schools, crossroads and all the rest of it, I am quite certain that the whole of this proposal
584
is unworkable. I submit to your Lordships that unless a driver can keep his attention concentrated on the centre of his field of vision, which should be the centre of the road, you are likely to have more casualties and not fewer; and that is one thing about which I am nervous.
The purpose of this Amendment and the consequential Amendment which depends upon it is to bring into force what has been the law in the City of Oxford ever since the limit there came into force. There you have proper signs which no one can mistake put up by the side of the road, which say that in the City area a speed limit is in force. I want to have the same sort of system under this Bill. This is practically the same system as was in force in the old days of the twenty miles an hour speed limit. Then we used to have occasional ten-mile limits which were all properly marked, and it was quite easy to see when you came to a ten-mile limit area. If this Bill becomes an Act in anything like its present form it will, on occasions, be almost impossible for the motorist to know when he is within a limited area and when he is not. I also think that to encourage the motorist to be looking all the time at the sides of the road for signs which will not be very easy to see, and which may be obscured by other vehicles and otherwise, is an entirely wrong way to tackle the problem. For those reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out (" a road in a built-up area ") and insert (" any restricted road ").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Though I am wholly opposed to this thirty miles an hour limit—and on that I hope to say a word when the question is put that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill—I am not sure I quite support my noble friend Lord Howe, because, as I read the Bill, the motorist will only have to look at the street lamps. If he sees street lamps there he will know that he is within the thirty miles an hour limit, and if there are no street lamps he will know that he is outside the limit. The noble Earl shakes his head, and I am quite ready to be convinced, because the Committee stage is meant for explaining things, but I submit that the question of multiplicity of signs in this case does not arise, because whether there are street lamps or

585
not the motorist will have to decide and look to see whether he is or is not within the speed limit area.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I do not know whether I can agree with Lord Mount Temple, because, by paragraph (b) of subsection (1), a length of road shall be deemed to be within the speed limit "if a direction that it shall be deemed lo be a road in a built-up area is, in force under this section." It is therefore unnecessary for there to be any street lamps there.
LOED MOUNT TEMPLE: I agree.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I am also afraid that I cannot agree with Lord Howe. I have always been an advocate of doing away with the speed limit, but owing to the default of the Police or the magistrates the provision as to dangerous driving in the last Act has fallen into disuse. We rarely hear of anybody being summoned for driving to the danger of the public, which was the object of doing away with the speed limit. I would like to refer to a case which is very germane to the question which we are discussing. I know where the driver of a motor car has boasted more than once that he drove from Newbury to Reading, a distance of twenty-three miles, in seventeen minutes, and this road, I imagine, would be called a built-up area under this clause. He would have to pass through three villages, and anybody who knows that road knows perfectly well that nobody can drive that distance in that time without driving to the danger of the public.
The last Act did away with the speed limit in order that you might prosecute a man who was driving, never mind how fast or how slowly, to the danger of the public. That provision seems to have failed, and the Government are thrown back upon trying something else, and they are trying, under this clause, to give effect to what they want to do in order to make people drive safely. The case that I have mentioned I know of personally, and I have no doubt it can be multiplied many times throughout the country. For that reason, although I would rather see the old system of doing away with the speed limit and making it an offence to drive dangerously, still I recognise the Government's difficulty. The magistrates or the Police have not carried out the existing Act, and there-
586
fore I would like to support the Government in attempting something else.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This Amendment has to be read in conjunction with other Amendments put down by the noble Earl. The effect of those Amendments would be to alter the whole principle which fixes the roads to which the speed limit is to apply. I think there is a certain amount, of confusion about the matter. The test of whether the speed limit applies or not is whether or not there exists on that road a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed at intervals of not more than 200 yards. It is perfectly true, and it is the intention of the Minister, to make use of signs to a limited extent in order to make it as easy as possible for the motorist to realise whether he is in a speed limit area or not. It is also true that there are provisions in this clause of the Bill which would enable roads to be derestricted, and vice versa, and that will require a certain number of signs, but in my view the suggestion which the noble Earl wishes to make here, if put into operation, would necessitate an infinitely greater number of signs than the system proposed by the Bill.
The fundamental fact is that the test of whether you are in a speed limit area or not is whether you are in a road on which exists a lighting system with lamps placed at intervals of not more than 200 yards. The purpose of the noble Earl's Amendments, as I see them, is to substitute for the general criterion of a system of street lighting which is applicable to the whole country, a system of detailed surveys of particular localities, before any speed limit is imposed in any built-up area at all. A similar proposal was discussed at length in another place. Indeed the whole question was very carefully considered and gone into, and had been very carefully considered by the Minister beforehand. I think one must draw attention to the inevitable delay that would result from such a series of individual surveys as would be necessitated by these Amendments. Therefore, unless the imposition of the new speed limit was to be deferred until the surveys were completed, the result would be lack of uniformity, which would scarcely be to the interest of the motorists themselves. I maintain that the cardinal merit of the proposal in the Bill is that it pro-

587
vides a criterion in general terms which is applicable throughout the whole country, but gives power alike to the local authority and to the Minister, on representation being made to him by the local authority, to derestrict in any case where the circumstances do not necessitate the imposition of the speed limit. The proposal which the noble Earl makes would really add nothing to the powers which exist in Section 46 of the Act of 1930. I can only repeat that this matter has beer, very carefully considered, and the Minister and the Government came to the definite conclusion that their test of a built-up speed area is the best in the circumstances, and I am therefore unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I must apologise for inflicting a few remarks on your Lordships for a second time, but I understand that the Amendment by Lord Howe to leave out lines 13 to 24—to leave out all words after "midnight "—and insert words stating what is a restricted road, is consequential upon the Amendment which he has just moved. If that is so I must ask your Lordships to bear with me while I say a few words upon the consequential Amendment, which would be affected if the first Amendment were rejected. It appears to me to be a very commonsense and democratic solution of the difficulty. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, will not, I am sure, say that the definition of an area where there are street lamps is an ideal one; in fact, the Bill by its exceptions proves that it is not an ideal one. When I was at the Ministry of Transport we had this very same question before us, and I admit that the best solution that was offered by those who investigated the question—and they did not pretend that it was ideal at all—was street lighting. Now that the consequential Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which stands next but one on the paper is before us, it seems to me that that is a proposal which might very well be considered by the Government.
What does this Amendment say? It says that:
" A restricted road for the purposes of this section shall be any road or length of road

(a) declared by the Minister, after considering a proposal made by the local authority, to be a road where by reason of the population in the neighbourhood,
588
the physical features of the road and the amount of traffic on the road it is unsafe to drive at a high speed; and

(b) marked by prescribed traffic signs

Now, who are the people—probably pedestrians and those in horse-drawn vehicles—who are most likely to be hurt in these prescribed areas? Obviously the inhabitants of those areas, and therefore it seems to me quite appropriate that the local authority should be the authority to move in this matter. Let us keep the existing state of things with no speed limit as it is, but let us say that the local authority, if they so wish—and many no doubt would wish it—may move the Minister of Transport to agree to restrict certain areas within their jurisdiction to a limit of thirty miles an hour.
I think also that the definition given by Lord Howe is far better than that in the Bill. What does it say? That there should be a restricted area—
" where by reason of the population in the neighbourhood "—
that is surely very relevant—
" the physical features of the road "—
that is most important—
" and the amount of traffic.…"
more important than everything—it is unsafe to drive at a high speed. I think the imposition of a universal thirty miles an hour limit in all areas, whether urban or semi-urban, is a great mistake. I am perfectly sure that what will happen will be that sporadic attempts will be made to enforce this provision during the first year or two, and after that there will be no attempts to enforce it. We shall go back to the bad old system when we had a twenty miles an hour speed limit and everybody broke it, from the Sovereign down to the humblest inhabitant. We shall therefore have the law brought into disrepute, and it would be proved—what is obvious now, to mo at any rate—that when people cry out for something to be done we generally do something very foolish. Let us leave the initiative to the local authorities, where the punishment can fit the crime. The needs of the local authority can be met by this new legislation, if they so desire it, but to impose the thirty miles an hour limit practically everywhere—because nobody imagines that the Minister is

589
going to exclude many areas; he has not got the time to go into the matter—seems to me to be trying to do something which you cannot do, and in consequence you will bring the law into disrespect.
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection 1, to leave out "between the hours of five in the morning and midnight." The noble Viscount said: The words which I propose to omit were not part of the original proposals of the Government; I understand that they wore inserted in another place. I agree with the Government that the limitation of the speed to thirty miles an hour is an important effort to increase the safety on the roads, but, if that be so, I cannot understand why it should be safer to drive at over thirty miles an hour between the hours of midnight and five in the morning than it is at any other hour. I should have thought on the contrary, other things being equal, that it was more dangerous to drive fast between these hours than at any other hour of the day. Not only is there less light, but, at any rate in the case of certain motorists, they are less capable of being prudent at those hours. It seems to me that it ought to have been the other way: if anything there ought to have been a special limit for those hours.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Wicklow, E.

Elton, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Astor, V.

Joicey, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Lamington, L.

Hailsham, V.

Marks, L.

Bathurst, E.

Halifax, V.

Marley, L.

Feversham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Palmer, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Playfair, L.

Morton, E.

Alvingham, L.

Rochester, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Amulree, L.

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Bayford, L.

Stratheden, L.

Onslow, E.

Charnwood, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Wakehurst, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Carrington, L.

Nuffield, L.

Cobham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bradford, E.

Denman, L.

Rhayader, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Rothes, E.

Greville, L.

Stanmore. L.

Mount Temple, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

So far as I have been able to gather, the only reason for this provision is that there are fewer accidents during that part of the twenty-four hours than during any other part. I have no doubt that is true, but of course the traffic is very much smaller, and, generally speaking, that does not conduce to safety, but it does conduce to a larger number of accidents. Obviously if there are only three cars on the road instead of thirty you expect fewer accidents. But that is the only reason. I doubt very much whether any evidence can be brought that, proportionately to the number of cars at that time on the road, there are fewer accidents. Certainly such little experience as any of us have had leads one to think there are more, accidents at that time than at any other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from (" hour ") to end of line 12.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL HOWE: I desire strongly to support the proposal of the noble Viscount. I take the view—and this I do entirely as a personal matter: I am not speaking for anybody else—that a thirty miles an hour limit is either right or wrong. Why is it

591
considered to be an offence for a man to exceed thirty miles an hour at one minute before midnight and no offence at all to do so on the same stretch of road two minutes later? I cannot see the logic of that. Furthermore, it is stated that there are fewer accidents at that time. It is true there is much less traffic on the road, but I think I am correct when I say that the percentage of accidents that take place between twelve midnight and five a.m. is just as high as at any other time. Furthermore, the accidents which take place during that time are usually almost certainly fatal. The most frightful collisions have taken place about that time, resulting in a great many deaths. The proportion of deaths to injury will, I am sure, be found to be greater between these hours than at other times, and I think it is absolutely essential in the interests of public safety, if you are going to have a limit of thirty miles an hour that everybody understands, it should be in operation the whole way round the clock. I do not like the idea of having an exempted period during the day. It is either right or wrong to have a speed limit of thirty miles an hour, and as long as the proposal is before us—and I shall have something to say about it later on—I strongly support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount.
LORD MEREIVALE: I should like to know why people should be encouraged to drive at a dangerous speed in the dark. There may be some explanation which someone in the Ministry can offer, but I cannot conceive of it myself.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to support this Amendment very strongly because I feel that every precaution should be taken to try to prevent accidents. If the speed limit is taken off after twelve o'clock at night I submit that would be a most dangerous thing to do. At that hour there are many people returning from parties or dinners. There are people walking in the street who may be either tired or perhaps a little festive and whose vision may not be very good. We are told that in the built-up areas last year sixty-eight people were killed during these hours. If you allow the speed to be at any pace you like after twelve o'clock, instead of diminishing that number of accidents you are doing your best to increase it. It is most important that at that hour of
592
night there should be a speed limit. Personally, I should like it to be down to twenty miles an hour instead of thirty, but that is perhaps too much to hope for. I hope your Lordships will again impose this speed limit all through the night and at every hour of the day as well.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: We discussed this matter on the Second Reading at considerable length, and I then informed the House of the considerations which had moved the Minister to accept this Amendment in another place—that is, to insert a provision for suspending the speed limit between the hours of midnight and five a.m. I must say that nothing I have heard this afternoon has made me feel that these arguments have been in any way stultified. What are the facts of the situation? The facts are that out of some 7,000 fatal accidents which occurred in 1933, fewer than 160 occurred between the hours of twelve midnight and five o'clock in the morning, and less than half of these were in built-up areas—namely, only sixty-five. It has been argued this afternoon that the reason for that is that there are many fewer vehicles then than at other times. That is true, and it is clearly quite impossible to work out the proportionate number of accidents during those hours compared with those which take place during the day time. What we are attempting to achieve in this Bill is an absolute reduction in the number of accidents; there is no question of proportion in it at all. Another consideration was that of the 3,000 pedestrians who were killed in 1933, over 2,700 were either under fifteen or over fifty-five years of age, and quite clearly most persons of that age will not be about during the early hours of the morning.
Then there was a third reason that moved the Minister to take this view and that was the difficulty of enforcement. A great deal of stress has been laid on that point of enforcement, and, naturally, the whole success of this depends very largely upon the strict enforcement of it and the successful enforcement of it. It is quite clear that it will be far more difficult to enforce a speed limit at night time than in the day time, for the simple reason that the number of police available at these hours of the night will be very many fewer than are available during the other hours of the day. I

593
think we are all agreed on this particular point—namely, that it is a very bad thing to have a law or regulation, or anything you like to mention, which is generally disregarded by the public. Those arguments which are based on facts are arguments which weighed very strongly with the Minister in making him come to the conclusion that the Amendment moved in another place was one which he could well accept.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether any of the facts which he has just recited by any chance apply to any of the hours of darkness before twelve o'clock midnight?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I cannot quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, when he says it will be very difficult between twelve midnight and five a.m. to test the speed of a car. The road at that time will be empty, and the car will be very easily ascertainable, whereas during the daytime, it may be one of many cars, in which case it is much more difficult to identify and to judge whether a particular car has exceeded the limit or not.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I only hope my noble friend will not think me very obstinate, but I am afraid I shall be bound to proceed to press my Amendment, if what the noble Earl has said is all that can be said against it. What does he say? He says in effect: "We shall only save something like sixty-five lives," but sixty-five lives are something after all. I know our standards have become very much lower in this matter owing to the amount of slaughter on the roads, but I should be very glad if we could say that we had saved even that number of lives. Then it is said we shall not save any children or old men. I am all for saving all the children and all the old men, while I do not wish to sacrifice the men who are in the full prime of their lives. Lastly, as to the difficulty of enforcing the law, if there is anything in that it applies to all the hours of darkness equally. Quite plainly, if that is the principle to be adopted you will have to exclude from the speed limit every hour that is not an hour of light. That would be going very far indeed, and I hope my noble friend will be able to reconsider his decision and accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I cannot understand why my noble friend the
594
Earl of Plymouth says there should be any difficulty about catching people who disobeyed the law between twelve midnight and five a.m. I understood my noble friend to say there would be difficulty in enforcing the law between twelve midnight and five a.m. and I cannot under stand it. So far as I understand, where the safety limit has been imposed nobody seems to obey it. Speaking from a purely personal point of view, I have a relation who, before very long, I have no doubt, will be going from London to Windsor. That is a built-up area, and young men, we know, go at a terrific speed at a time of night when they are quite unfit to drive a motor at all as a rule. We have known of many accidents, and it would be to my mind a great relief if I knew that this law was going to be introduced, and that the speed limit, if it is to be imposed at all in any built-up area, is to be continued until five o'clock in the morning.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I do not see why an exception should be made logically to the speed limit during these particular hours. I happened to receive a letter the other day from a gentleman living perhaps twenty miles out of London, in which the writer sent me a report saying that cars were driven at great speed by people very often not in a fit state to drive them back to London between the hours of twelve midnight and three in the morning. There is also another reason which has not been mentioned yet in this debate, and that is the noise which these cars make as they go along some of these roads with houses on each side of them. I hope very much indeed that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I must protest first of all against the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Clanwilliam) who apparently regards the young driver as being as a rule inebriated at a late hour of the night.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I never said such a thing.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The noble Lord gave that impression. Secondly, I must protest against the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood)

595
who apparently uses the word "young" as synonomous for the word "careless." That is an insinuation which was made in another place.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I never suggested anything about the young being careless.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I feel that these statements are most unfair. It is perfectly clear that if a driver is inebriated he will pay no attention whether there is a speed limit or not; therefore, in so far as that argument is concerned, it is quite irrelevant. I must protest against the suggestion that all young drivers are necessarily dangerous and more dangerous than those drivers who are too old to have control of cars.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Apparently from the debate one would conclude that all those who drive motor cars on the road between twelve midnight and five a.m. are undesirable people. If that is so, why should we not very much welcome the Government's proposal as tending to enable them to kill each other?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
" Provided that a road laid out as a bypass road for the purpose of enabling through traffic to avoid a town or village and constructed with the aid of a grant from the Road Fund shall not be deemed to be a road in a built-up area."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simple. The Government have made enormous grants for the building of roads for the purpose of by-passing certain areas, and then the house builders have hurriedly gone on to these new roads and built houses alongside them, with the result that lights have had to be put up along these roads. Unless the Minister definitely decontrols those roads, as the Bill stands at the moment the roads which have been specially designed for heavy traffic and in most cases provide a long way round will not be used by that traffic. Under this speed limit the traffic will be unable to save time by going the long way round and will simply take the short cut. You will thus turn the traffic back from the by-pass roads on to the roads on which it used to run previously, simply because you have by this speed limit turned them off the roads
596
which you have specially built for them at the cost of £2,000,000. It is like throwing this £2,000,000 down a drain. We have spent the money on these roads and they will not be used. I do not for a moment believe that it is safe to leave it to the Minister to say that the by-pass roads shall be decontrolled. I think it is most important that we should definitely say to him that they must be, and that we shall not have a speed limit on a road laid out as a by-pass road.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OP PLYMOUTH: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is undesirable to leave it to the discretion of the Minister as to whether a road should be derestricted. I think it would be perfectly fatal to make it compulsory. In this connection the Minister is given power through the local authority to derestrict roads which would normally be in built-up areas. The Minister made it quite clear in another place, and has also made it clear on other occasions, that it is his intention to use these powers comparatively freely with a view to derestricting roads such as the noble Lord has in view. There is this fact to be remembered, that unfortunately there are already some roads which have been constructed as by-pass roads where the nature of the development which has taken place is such that derestriction might be quite unjustified. In my view it would be quite wrong to tie the Minister down in this way.
EARL HOWE: I have listened with interest to what the noble Earl has said because it seems to me that this Amendment raises the whole question of ribbon development. One or two very eloquent speeches were made the other day during the Second Reading debate with reference to the extension of ribbon development. It is clear that if matters go on as they are going on to-day a great many of the roads constructed at vast national and local expense will become more or less urban areas with long serried rows of houses on each side, and the roads constructed primarily to free towns from heavy traffic will be shut in. Some local authorities, as I mentioned the other day, are themselves offenders. I mentioned the Hertfordshire County Council and I

597
believe it is not the only one. If the Government are unable to accept this Amendment, I think they might at any rate give us some information as to what effective steps, if any, are going to be taken to deal with ribbon development. I feel that this is a question of great importance. If you allow this ribbon development, to go on you will do nothing to save road casualties, and the possibility of saving life is the great justification for this Bill.
Surely it would be worth the while of the Government to take really energetic steps in this matter. They may have been taken, and if so no doubt we shall be told of them, but if the Government are unable to accept this Amendment, I think we ought to have some better assurance than has been given so far, that they are going to deal with this question. Street lighting will become the criterion of what is to be done in respect of speed limit and so it becomes extra-ordinarily important. Street lamps will probably be put up on by-pass roads and arterial roads more with the idea of controlling the speed of traffic than of providing for the needs of the area at night. I nope the Government will give us some assurance on this point.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This question was also raised during the Second Reading debate, and I explained the position then as far as I could. I am afraid I am not able to go further to-day. I told the House that the Government were giving careful consideration to the question, firstly, of what could be done administratively, and secondly, of what legislation might be possible, to achieve the object which the noble Earl and others have in view. I cannot go further now.
EARL HOWE: Would the noble Earl be able to give any more information on the Report stage?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will see if I am able to furnish further information then.
LORD SANDHURST: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the foregoing subsection").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after "principal Act." The noble Earl said: This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with two others standing in my name on Clause 2. These Amendments implement promises given by the Minister in another place. Their object, generally speaking, is to obtain uniformity with regard to penalties and corroboration of evidence in regard to various breaches of the law. It is rather a complicated matter and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I explain it. The subsection beginning 1A, proposed to be inserted in Clause 2, provides that offences against the speed limit shall not involve liability to imprisonment. As the Bill stands an offender against the new thirty miles an hour speed limit in built-up areas would be liable to imprisonment. An offender under the First Schedule to the principal Act or against a local order such as the Oxford Order might be visited with imprisonment on a second conviction.
Again the proposed new subsection (2) provides that a first or second offence should not involve liability to suspension of licence. As the Bill and the principal Act stand a first or second offence against the new speed limit or the limits under the first schedule is not liable to suspension of licence, but in theory at least a first offender under a local order such as the Oxford order might be so liable. The subsection beginning "(3) A person prosecuted," etc., requires corroboration of the opinion of a witness in the case of an offence against the speed limit. As the Bill and the principal Act stand corroboration is required in case of an offence against the new speed limit or against the limits in the First Schedule but not in the case of an offence against a local order such as the Oxford order. Your Lordships will see therefore, that the law as it at present stands is somewhat confused and it might result in injustice to a certain section of drivers. For that reason this Amendment and the two Amendments to Clause 2 have been put down.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out from the second (" Act ") to the end of line 7".—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (3), before "increase," to insert "remove". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to stop the speed limit at any time he likes. In common with many other people, I have doubts about the speed limit. I suspect that it will have no effect, or if it has any effect it will be an effect in the wrong direction. It may easily be that within a period of much less than five years the Minister will come to the conclusion that the thirty-mile limit is unwise, unnecessary and unworkable. He has already decided after only four years that the removal of the general speed limit was a mistake, and why he should now commit himself to five years for this new scheme passes my comprehension. He has given himself power to increase or reduce it and I suggest he should also have power to remove it. By increasing it he may virtually do away with it, but the greatest danger is that if you have a speed limit people will regard it as the minimum speed at which they may travel and not as the maximum.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, after (" order ") insert (" remove ").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The noble Lord has explained that the purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Minister by order (subject to confirmation by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament) to repeal Clause 1 of this Bill altogether. I think that, even subject to the safeguard of the requirement of a Parliamentary Resolution, such power would be open to objection. If the Bill passes in its present form, Parliament will have deliberately approved of the imposition of a speed limit in certain specified areas. You cannot compare this Amendment to the giving of power to the Minister either to increase or reduce the speed limit, because after all it is not at all a matter of detail which is involved here, but a big principle which will have been approved by Parliament when this measure comes into operation. Personally I feel that it would be wrong to give to the Minister, even with the
600
suggested safeguard, the power to revise a principle of this kind by methods such as these. This is a matter which ought to be dealt with by a substantive Bill. After all, I think the speed limit which is to be imposed by this Bill must be given a fair trial, and with a view to ensuring that, the Minister agreed to an Amendment being put into the Bill limiting its operation to the end of 1939. In these circumstances I am afraid I must resist this Amendment.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Earl who is speaking for the Department bases his refusal to accept this Amendment on his contention that the removal altogether of the speed limit ought to be done by a substantive Bill. If that argument stood alone I should to a great extent agree with him, because according to our ideas of Parliamentary procedure if Parliament has embodied a principle in a Bill, the abolition of that principle should be brought about by a Bill which goes through the usual stages, and not simply by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. But your Lordships will observe that in subsection (3) of Clause 1 the Minister and another place visualise an increase or reduction of the speed limit without any substantive Bill; and the increase may be so great as practically to do away altogether with the restriction, or the reduction may have the same effect. If you allow the Minister with the approval of both Houses of Parliament to increase or reduce the speed limit, I cannot see why those people acting together should not do away with it altogether. It is not as if Parliament, or at any rate another place, has visualised this as the laws of the Medes and Persians which alter not—as a law which is going to stand for all time. As I understand, this is only going to last for just over five years, and therefore, Parliament—another place, at any rate—has regarded this as a transitory measure. With all due deference to my noble friend who has moved this Amendment I do not think it matters very much whether the Amendment is passed or not, but from the point of view of logic I do think that there is no substance in the argument that there ought to be a substantive Bill to bring about the removal of the speed limit when you are giving power by this Bill to the Minister to increase or reduce

601
the limit with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment, in subsection (3), to leave out "thereby" and insert "so," is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("thereby") and insert ("so").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection. (3), to leave out the words "or vary the times thereby fixed as the times between which that limit is to be observed." The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendmen on the Amendment which was accepted earlier. I shall not, of course, press this Amendment if my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth tells me that he would rather that it stood over until the Report stage, but it seems to me to be essential in order to make sense of the Bill, in view of the Amendment which has been accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("or vary the times thereby fixed as the times between which that limit is to be observed").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, but perhaps he would not mind putting this Amendment down on Report, by which time I shall have an opportunity to go into it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly; I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next five Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, leave oat ("a system of street lighting ") and insert (" such a system of lighting as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, leave out (" their ") and insert ("his").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out (" where ") and insert (" in which ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, leave out (" this ") and insert (" the ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("maintain") insert ("the prescribed").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (7) (a), to leave out "or" ["or as to a direction"] and insert "and by means of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to traffic signs which are to be erected on a length of road where there will be either street lamps but no speed limit or a speed limit but no street lamps. In both of these cases there have to be traffic signs for the information of the driver, and the object of this Amendment is to ensure that the signs are not more than two hundred yards apart. This distance has been selected because the same measurement is selected to determine whether street lamps are sufficiently close to one another to constitute a built-up area. The motorist is going to be in a position of the greatest possible difficulty if this Bill passes into law. I want all your Lordships to realise the matter from the point of view of the driver. After all, if a speed limit is imposed we do not want to see the law frequently broken, or fall into disrespect, which would obviously lead to very much the same state of affairs as we had in the case of the old twenty miles an hour speed limit. We want to have the law observed, and we must give the driver a fair chance to observe it. It must be remembered that signs at the sides of the road are not always going to be at all easy to see, as I pointed out on a previous Amendment, because they are likely to be obscured by other vehicles, or the sun may be shining straight down the road into the eyes of the driver. There are all sorts of reasons why it will be very difficult for the driver to know when he is in a limited area, but it will be easy for him to know if the prescribed signs occur about every two hundred yards. This

603
point was raised on the Report stage in another place, and I think that on that occasion the Minister asked for time to consider it. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out (" or ") and insert (" and by means of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart ").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The purpose of the noble Earl's Amendment as I see it is to require that in a restricted area, whether normally restricted (that is to say by reason of the existence of a system of street lighting) or specially restricted under the second alternative, repeat thirty miles per hour signals shall be placed at intervals of not more than two hundred yards. The effect of this Amendment, I am informed, would be to require thirty miles per hour signs to be placed every two hundred yards along such streets as the Strand, High Street. Hammersmith, or any other street that you like to mention. I do not know whether that was the noble Earl's intention. In view of the fact that he showed some apprehension with regard to the enormous multiplicity of signs which might ensue from the operation of some of the provisions of this Bill, I doubt whether that was his intention. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any definite pledge as to the number of repeat signals to be erected, but the Government recognise that there may be cases in which it would be of practical assistance to the motorist that such repeat signals should be erected, and this question is now under discussion with the organisation concerned. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Earl for what he has said. Of course I quite understand the position as he has explained it, but I would like to ask him whether it would be possible for him to tell us anything more on this point at a later stage of the measure in this House.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I cannot say as to that, but I will make inquiries and find out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
" () The directions to be given by the Minister for the purposes of the last preceding subsection of this section may include
604
directions requiring the placing of traffic signs on the surface of the carriageway."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try to persuade the Government to make provision for signs to be placed on the surface of the road, in addition to the signs erected at the roadside. The signs I have in mind could be either studs or rubber blocks, and I want to submit to the Minister that the centre of the road is where you want to have the driver's attention. Signs at the side of the road are always liable, as I have said, to be obscured by other vehicles, or something may make it impossible to see them, for some reason or another. The background of signs at the side of the road is often very bad indeed, and personally I should like to see it absolutely forbidden to have, for instance, red signs used in the fronts of shops in any way where traffic signals may be erected. From a driver's point of view I find it most confusing, and if we could have signs in the middle of the road it would make things easier for the driver who wants to observe the conditions of the law, which should be the ambition of everybody. If a driver has to look to the right or to the left he is liable to have his attention distracted at a critical moment. The point that I am now raising was, I believe, raised in another place, and the Minister was quite sympathetic to the idea, but the form of the Amendment was criticised. I very much hope that the Minister may have been able to give a little further consideration to this point, and perhaps the noble Earl may be able to give us a little comfort here.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As I am now advised, this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because the Minister already has power to direct the placing of traffic signs on the surface of the carriageway, and in a circular letter addressed to the motorists' associations, and the associations representative of highway and other local authorities, he drew special attention to the possibility of prescribed markings in the bed of the carriageway itself. I feel certain that everything said by the noble Earl, with so much experience at his command, will be very carefully considered, but in view of what

605
I have said I hope he will not press his Amendment, which I gather is quite unnecessary.
EARL HOWE: Having regard to what the noble Earl has said, I will not press the Amendment, but I hope the point will be borne in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert:
" () The general or other directions to be given by the Minister with respect to signs to be erected to indicate the beginning and end of a length of road where a speed limit is in force shall include a direction requiring such signs to be illuminated during the hours of darkness "
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to which I attach considerable importance. The Minister now will be able to tell me whether it is absolutely required or not, but its purpose is to secure the illumination of traffic signs showing the beginning and end of the speed limit area. Unless we can secure this I do not see how the driver at night can be relied upon always to pick up the speed limit signs. He has got to rely upon the field of his lamps, and they may not be such as to pick up the signs, or, alternatively, the direction in which his car is pointing may be such as not to pick up one, of the signs, and experience has shown that unless you have these signs illuminated at night drivers will be liable to overrun them. Much can be done by the use of catch-light signs, such as one sees in advertisements, and it may be that the Ministry has an approved form of catch-light sign which could be erected. At any rate I hope we shall make it easy for drivers to pick up the signs. It may be that not all areas have electric light or gas, but there are various devices on the market which provide, I think, for high pressure gas stored in cylinders, which is entirely automatic and lights up and puts itself out an whatever times are settled. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that at the beginning and end of the speed limit there shall be some form of sign used which will enable motorists to be certain whether or not they are in a restricted area.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I believe that this is the full intention of the Minister. Your Lordships will see that
606
subsection (8) of Clause 1 proposes to empower the Minister to make regulations providing for the illumination of these signs or for the attachment of reflectors thereto. While direct illumination, where possible, is preferable to indirect illumination, I am told that it is generally accepted that certain types of reflector signs are efficient, and in certain cases the provision of direct illumination, would not be a practicable proposition. The only difference which I see between the Amendment of the noble Earl and the provision in the Bill is that in the case of the Amendment the instruction is a mandatory one to the Minister, whereas the provision in the Bill merely empowers him to take this action. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister intends to take action on these lines, and I think there is considerable objection to making a direction of this kind mandatory on the Minister—obligatory upon him to give a certain specific direction. If it is intended that certain specific requirements should be made, I am informed that it should be done directly and not by ordering the Minister to do a particular thing—that it should be done directly in the Bill—and that the whole object of proceeding by regulation is to enable the Minister to exercise a certain degree of discretion, so as to meet changing circumstances and developments, without having the delays which are necessary in order to wait on an opportunity for effecting further legislation. For these reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I will merely repeat that it is the intention of the Minister that these signs should be erected.
LORD SANDHURST: I am rather perturbed because I think one of the most important things is that we should have exactly the same signs in use all over the country, and if we are going to have the same sign, either illuminated or reflector sign, the reflector sign has not reached a satisfactory development owing to the improved lamps which motorists are having fixed on their cars. The modern lamp has been designed with a great deal of care to do away with dazzle effect, and produces a very flat beam which is directed low down quite close to the road. It does not light a great many reflector signs, for the simple reason, that it does not throw the light high enough. So the reflector sign is

607
going to be defeated by the fact that the motorist is trying to eliminate accidents by having a non-dazzle lamp. An illuminated sign is therefore of the greatest importance.
EARL HOWE: Supposing the Bill passes in its present form, will it be possible for the signs at the beginning and at the end of a restricted area not to be illuminated? The motorist, if his headlamps do not pick up the signs, would simply not know that he had passed into a restricted area.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Of course, he has always the basic standard and test of the street lighting system on the road.
EARL HOWE: But will the Minister allow a restricted area to come into operation in those conditions? It is possible for a street-lighted area not to be a restricted area. If the lamps are more than 600 feet apart it is not a restricted area. But no motorist can possibly tell whether the lamps are 600 feet apart or 650 feet apart. After all, in restricted areas the lamp posts, I take it, are all going to be more or less coloured, or bands will be put round them, but that is no good at night. What I want to be sure about is that if this clause is passed it shall be observed. The whole thing depends upon its observance. Unless the driver is aware that he is in a restricted area I do not see how you can possibly secure the observance of the law. You cannot blame the driver if he has not seen the sign.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I fully appreciate the point of the noble Earl, and it is certainly the intention of the Minister to make it as easy as possible, with the help of signs, for a driver to know when he comes into a restricted area. I am not in a position to give a definite pledge, but I feel absolutely certain that it will be his intention to have signs that will be illuminated at night to warn the motorist when he is coming into a restricted area.
EARL HOWE: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 17, after ("last") insert (" published ").
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("for the time being").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Earl said: Clause 1, from the point of view of the motor world, really embodies the whole of this Bill. Everything depends upon Clause 1. The question is whether or not we are going to reduce accidents by what we have already proved in this country to be a futile experiment. Your Lordships may remember that in 1930 I did my best to oppose the removal of the twenty miles an hour speed limit. I did it for certain special reasons, and the principal one was that I could not secure an approved standard of driving, that I could not get tests for drivers. I held the view that, if the majority of drivers on the roads were very largely to increase their speeds as the result of the removal of the speed limit, an increase of accidents would take place. I am glad to think that my forebodings were not actually borne out. For the first two years after the removal of the twenty miles an hour speed limit the number of casualties on the roads went down. But to-day we have been faced with an appalling increase in road accidents. It is the question of public safety, and nothing else, which has produced this Bill. But we are asked really to put back the clock and to go back to the days of 1930 again. I said the other day that in these matters the maximum often tends to become the minimum, and a motorist is liable to think, "Oh, well, as long as I do not go more than thirty miles an hour I am all right." But any amount of danger can be caused at thirty miles an hour, especially if the driver is not a very efficient driver.
Since 1930 also the courts of the land have more or less operated under the Highway Code. When the Highway Code first came into being it seemed that very little attention was paid to it by the courts, or indeed by the Police, but I think it is true to say that latterly the Police and the courts have paid far more attention to the proper observance of the Highway Code than they have to anything else, and the Police have gradually been realising that the Highway Code does in fact embody the common sense of the highway. And half the trouble on the highways to-day is a question of common sense. If only every road user

609
—pedestrians, cyclists and horse-drivers, as well as motorists—would observe the common sense of the Highway Code we should really get a reduction in the casualty roll. What is going to happen when this clause is passed? The Police will find it obviously far easier to secure convictions for technical infringements of the law than they ever will under the rather complicated provisions, as they sometimes are, of the Highway Code. Take a white line area. Every one of your Lordships will agree that the white line area must be scrupulously observed by every road user, whether motorist or bicyclist or pedestrian. What do we all find nowadays? We see sometimes motor vehicles and sometimes horse-drawn vehicles and other vehicles parked or stopped within a white line area, very often at a bend in such a position that oncoming drivers do not know they are there. There is a sudden swerve, and if the surface of the road is at all slippery probably a skid results, a car is met coming the other way, and one of those terrible head-on collisions about which we read takes place. It is the observance of the Highway Code, I submit, that is going to reduce the casualty roll.
Other countries have tried speed limits and have given them up. You go abroad and you find that real stress is nearly always placed on the way in which you drive your car, and not so much stress is placed upon the actual speed. Speed is only one factor. It is an important factor, but it is only one factor, and it is not always the most important factor when an accident takes place. There are many accidents which may be within your Lordships' knowledge as having taken place in which speed has been only of secondary importance. I agree it is of great importance, but often its importance is secondary. I did hope that when we came to this year 1934 we should not be told we must go back to the futile experiment of former years. I am glad to think we have now got a provision regarding a test of drivers. That provision, if properly carried out, will really do something to improve the standard of driving of motor vehicles on the road. That is my view in spite of what a great many people say whose knowledge and experience are just as great as my own, perhaps greater. At any rate I must, on behalf of those for whom I speak, press this Amendment. I
610
am very disappointed that my Amendment with regard to traffic signals was not included in the Bill. If that Amendment had been agreed to it would have affected my attitude to Clause 1, but in the circumstances I must press my Amendment in the hope that it may receive support from your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I desire only to express my regret at not having been in my place when the Amendment was called with which my name was associated, and my satisfaction that the abolition of the suspension of the speed limit between midnight and five a.m. has been conceded by the Government. I think that is an improvement. As the noble Earl has rightly said, this clause is really the pith of the Bill. I cannot help sharing to some extent his doubts with regard to the re-imposition of the speed limit. At the same time the Minister has declared that this Bill is experimental, and the only way finally to prove the success or failure of the speed limit is to endeavour to enforce it for some period. I therefore feel the Government are justified in introducing this speed limit in built-up areas. But I feel it must be very strictly enforced. I feel there must be very careful supervision in order to see that it is enforced, otherwise the experiment will not be justified and we shall not be able to realise to what extent any falling off in accidents is due to the imposition of the speed limit. But, considering this point has been disputed so very fully during the last few years and that those who maintain that speed is the predominant element in accidents have been able to bring forward some very formidable arguments, I think the Government are justified in imposing a speed limit, and I shall not find myself able to support the noble Earl in the deletion of the clause.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: I only want to say one word as to what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Howe. I think it is quite possible that the speed limit will not be effective, because it is quite possible it will not be enforced. I believe it would be effective if it wore enforced. It all

611
depends on what measures your Lordships take to see that the Government have ample powers to enforce it. I venture to repeat in a single sentence what I said on the Second Reading. I rather doubt whether anything you can do will make it possible for roads to be used at the same time by cars going thirty miles an hour and faster and by pedestrians and slow-moving traffic. I doubt very much whether you will ever succeed in combining a road for the use of these two classes of traffic. I believe you will be driven sooner or later to have roads which are set apart for fast traffic and to which slow traffic will not be admitted. I am told there are such roads in Italy, for instance, where you have got the real element and possibility of speed. I say that because of the kind of legislation we have adopted with such enormous success in reference to the railways. We have not attempted to impose a speed limit on the railways but we have taken the utmost care to see that nobody goes on the railways who is not entitled to go there, and then only under stringent conditions. The statistics for last year have just been issued. A passenger is only killed at the rate of 1 in 282,000,000. That is real safety. When you talk about reducing the absolute number of accidents on the roads you have to go a very long way before you get even within sight of such a condition of safety as that. But this is a step in the right direction. It is the result of the Government's mature consideration, and I hope it will be effective.
May I ask one question of my noble friend? I am a little anxious about the country villages. They are not, of course, generally speaking, built-up areas within the meaning of this Bill. Surely they are entitled to special protection because they are occupied very often by people who are not in a position to be always watching their children, and there are shocking and horrible tragedies occurring almost daily in these villages, of children being run over and killed in the roadway. It is almost impossible to avoid that. They are very often on the way to school, and in the circumstances you cannot expect children to be as careful as grown-up people, and these accidents occur. I know the Government will have the power to enforce the speed limit in these villages which are not built-up
612
areas if the local authorities ask—that is what I understand the Bill to mean—but I should be grateful if my noble friend would give me some assurance that this particular aspect of the question will be carefully considered, because it is a very serious matter and one which calls urgently for attention.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I rise to say one or two words. On this clause I take the exactly opposite view to that of my noble friend Lord Howe because he did believe in restricting the speed limit. He did not believe in letting everything go. I was always in favour of getting rid of all speed limits. My noble friend has now come to the point where he accepts, for experimental purposes at this time, that the Government idea is a bad one, and you ought to have no speed limit imposed. I have come to the opposite conclusion. I do not think the reintroduction of the speed limit will do much good, but I think a case has been made out to try it as an experiment, and therefore I am unable to support my noble friend's Amendment. I would like to ask him one question, and that is: What did he mean in his speech by the road code, the Highway Code? I have a copy of the Highway Code. I may be quite wrong, but I think that that is merely issued as a piece of polite advice and not as a code under the Act. When the 1930 Act came in it was asked why that was not made a code under the Act. That is merely a document containing polite advice and nothing more. Several of us wanted it as a code under the 1930 Act, and we did not get it, and it is rather a strong measure to say, when it is merely left as a book of advice, that the courts will take it as their guide with regard to an accident. I wish it had been incorporated in this Bill, as I wish it had been incorporated in the 1930 Act, but I want it to be quite clear that that is all that is meant by this book of advice.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I before the noble Earl replies ask him one question? On page 3 of the Bill subsection 7 deals with the duty of the local authorities to erect and maintain traffic signs and to alter or remove them at the order of the Minister. It also says that if those local authorities do not carry out the orders of the Minister the expense which he incurs in putting up the signs may be recovered from them in a civil action.

613
Up till now, I think I am right in saying, the Minister has always given generous contributions from the Road Fund to local authorities for purposes such as this. I do not ask the Minister to bind himself down to what percentage should be contributed from the Road Fund, but I do ask him whether the principle of a contribution from the Road Fund to local authorities to enable them to erect and maintain the signs will be continued.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: After the speeches of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood), I think there is little left for me to say. We debated this question of the speed limit at considerable length during the course of the Second Reading when I put forward the arguments which had actuated the Minister in concluding that a speed limit in built-up areas was necessary. This is undoubtedly a vital portion of the Bill. I think that it is quite clear from the speeches which have been made that the consensus of opinion of the House is that an experiment of this kind, the imposition of a speed limit in a built-up area, is in the circumstances justified. I do not think it is fair to compare this speed limit with the old twenty miles per hour speed limit. There is really no analogy between the two. To begin with, the old twenty miles an hour speed limit was a general speed limit which applied throughout the whole country, whereas this new thirty miles per hour speed limit is one which operates only over a restricted area and which, in consequence, will be con-
siderably easier to enforce than was the old one. It is the general opinion that the objection to the old speed limit was that not only was it in itself unreasonable, but that it became a dead letter and was impossible to enforce. I think this restricted thirty miles per hour speed limit is reasonable in itself, and we hope the vast majority of motorists, who are reasonable people, will take that view also, and will respect the law. For that reason I am afraid we cannot possibly accept the noble Earl's Amendment to leave out this clause.
The noble Viscount asked me a question about the position in the villages. This Bill will give powers to the local authorities to impose speed limits in the villages with the approval of the Minister. I am afraid I cannot give him a very definite answer to his question, but I feel absolutely certain that this is a matter which will receive the most careful consideration. I know that the object not only of the noble Viscount, but of all of us, is to minimise the risk of accidents not only in the towns but everywhere else as much as possible. One other question was asked me by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple. He asked whether the grants towards maintaining these signs in various localities would be continued out of the Road Fund. I understand that that will be so, that we shall continue those grants as we have done in the past.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gainford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Goschen, V.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hailsham, V.

Greville, L.

Reading, M.

Halifax, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Zetland, M.

Long, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Mersey, V.

Jessel, L.

Bathurst, E.

Joicey, L.

Bradford, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Feversham, E.

Lamington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Luke, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Marks, L.

Morton, E.

Bayford, L.

Marley, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Bingley, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Onslow, E.

Merrivale, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Playfair, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wicklow, E.

Denman, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Rhayader, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Stratheden, L.

Rochester, L.

Stanmore, L.

Templemore, L.

Rockley, L.

Strachie, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Dudley, E.

Nuffield, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Macclesfield, E.

de Clifford, L.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:
Provisions as to speed indicators.
" (1) On or after such date as may be prescribed by the Minister every motor vehicle (as described in Section 1 of the Road Act 1930) shall whenever used on a road carry a speed indicator so fixed as to be plainly visible at all times to persons of normal eyesight at a reasonable distance both to the front and rear of the vehicle.
(2) The indicator shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by the Minister.
(3) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on conviction, be deemed to have been guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1930."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to secure that the clause which we have just adopted by a large majority shall be an effective clause. We have heard from several speakers already this afternoon, quite rightly, that unless we can make this limitation of the speed effective it will be better not to enact it at all. I think that is true. Nothing is worse than an ineffective provision. It was said by my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth that he thought motorists would be ready to co-operate in enforcing this provision. I only hope he is right, but I confess I have some doubt about it. I observed the other day that the motoring correspondent of one of the daily newspapers referred to thirty miles an hour as dawdling. That is the opinion of so many of the people who cause accidents. They regard it as almost degrading to go at any less pace than the full speed which their car will accomplish. I observed in another paper an announcement that a new set of cars would be put on the market next year the speed of which will be 100 miles an hour.
I must say that I cannot feel any great confidence that motorists will combine to enforce this provision. Many of them
616
will, but not those who are the cause of accidents. The question is what can be done to make it easier to enforce the law. My noble friend Lord Elton, in the Second Reading debate, gave a very vivid description of the difficulty which a law-abiding motorist finds himself under at Oxford. He explained that it was a great strain on human nature if you are driving a Rolls Royce capable of going very fast, and if you are complying strictly with the law, to find yourself passed by a very inferior car, the driver of which is not complying with the law. There is a tendency to keep in front merely to demonstrate the superiority of a Rolls Royce. I think that is a sound summing up of human nature. What I am afraid of is that this new provision may receive a certain amount of obedience during the first few months, but that after a little time there will gradually grow up a tendency to go, first, at thirty-five miles an hour, then at forty, then at forty-five and so on until the worst of the old speed has been re-established in built-up areas.
That is what happened in the case of the twenty miles an hour limit. It is true that that limit was general and it was thought to be in some respects quite unreasonable. But this new limit will also be thought to be quite unreasonable. I am sure of that from the way motorists talk. They say it may be reasonable in some districts but not in all. That is exactly what they said about the twenty miles an hour limit. It was reasonable in some districts but not in all. The result of that attitude is that each person chooses winch is a reasonable place and conforms with the law in that place, but does not conform to the law elsewhere. There is a gradual weakening of the law and a gradual failure to enforce it. My suggestion, which I have ventured to put before your Lordships once or twice, is that there should be a mechanical indicator on the motor car which would make it quite clear when the driver was in fact breaking the law.
I cannot see any great hardship in that. It merely provides that there shall be at the back of the car a dial divided into quarters, the first quarter showing when the car is within the limits of the law, the second when it is a little beyond it, say, thirty-five to forty-five, the third when the speed is between forty-five and sixty miles and the fourth when it is above sixty. Those are the kind of figures which might be shown. It is perfectly easy to see on a broadish indicator whether the speed of a car is shown in the first quarter or the second, or third or fourth quarter, and so there could be no question whether a man was really complying, broadly, with the law. It would give a test which anyone could enforce. It would need no skill. A person would simply look at the dial.
I am told that such a dial can be fixed comparatively cheaply—the figure quoted to me was about £3—and I do not think that is too great a price to ask motorists to pay for safety. It may be said, and no doubt will be said, that such dials are apt to get out of order. I do not believe they are to any very great extent, but if they do get a little out of order it would soon be detected if a car which marked thirty-five or forty miles an hour was passed by a car which marked only thirty. It would be very easy to detect a car whose dial was not working with reasonable accuracy. I venture to suggest that this is a really practical method of enforcing the law. It has been suggested that there should be a red lamp lighted when the speed went beyond a certain figure. I do not think that is practical because the speed limit will not necessarily be the same in all parts of a journey and a motorist going along perfectly legally in a non-built-up area should not be made to display a red light as if he were breaking the law.
I think myself that the indicator I suggest is really a practicable proposal, although I have not the slightest doubt that those who speak for motorists will say it is not practicable. I can only say that my view is supported by engineers, and I am quite prepared to submit the tests co the Government. The Government will be able to carry out the experiments in the matter and see whether the thing is practicable, and they will, I am quite certain, find some practicable method of doing it. Engineers are accustomed to say that they do not
618
know what the word "impossible" means, and I believe that there is no doubt that it can be done if they wish to do it. I venture very seriously to press this proposal upon the Government. I cannot help thinking that to pass this Bill without some such proposal to facilitate the conviction of those who break the law will be a very dangerous experiment. I hope therefore that the Government will very carefully consider it and see whether they cannot adopt it, either in its present form or in some form very like it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Viscount. If this Amendment is read in plain English, what does it mean? It says "a speed indicator so fixed as to be plainly visible." Does that mean plainly visible so that it can be read, or merely so that it can be seen that there is one there?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Obviously the common sense of it is that it means so that it can be read, and the Government are given the power to prescribe what is the necessary size, shape and make of the instrument.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I rather thought that that must be the meaning of it, but I point out that it does not say so. Assuming that that is to be the meaning of it, then it is to be visible, that is to say it is to be readable, "at all times to persons of normal eyesight at a reasonable distance." What do these words mean? Do they mean at a reasonable distance when the motor car is in motion? It has to be remembered that these indicators are moving the whole time as the speed of the car is altering, and therefore if it is to be any good it must be such that at any moment a person can say he has read it, although it may have changed. If you are going to have that, you first have to determine what is "a reasonable distance." That is not for the Minister to determine; it is for somebody else to determine. And the indicator has to be readable at a reasonable distance by a person of normal eyesight. I should like to know whether the noble Viscount suggests that these disc indicators should be two feet or three feet or four feet in diameter—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, of course not.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Because if he is going to suggest that a small dial of that type would be of any use at all, I venture to disagree.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry that my noble friend was not in the House when I explained this on previous occasions. I have always said that about eight inches was my view of the diameter of the dial, but I do not pin myself to the exact number of inches that will be necessary. It would be something of the size of a soup plate.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I should be very much surprised if anything under three times that size would be of any use whatsoever.
VISCOUNT CECTL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot see why.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Furthermore it is not only to be fixed at the back of the car; it is to be visible "both to the front and rear of the vehicle." That means a disc at each end of the car, one in front of the radiator and one in front of the number plate at the back so far as I can make out. It is to be of a type prescribed by the Minister. Is the Minister, or the Ministry, to take a number of normal people and ask them at what speed they can read the indication upon a particular dial, before they make up their mind which particular type to take? I surest to your Lordships that this would be wholly impracticable, and even if fitted it would really tell nothing. The Amendment does not arise, as the noble Viscount said when he began his speech, out of a desire that the person driving the car shall know that he is keeping within the law, but from a desire that people in the street, outside the car, may know whether the driver of the car is obeying the law or not.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It would be extremely difficult to know what they were to do if they thought the driver was not obeying the law. There is only one other word I would like to say. You have very different conditions under this Bill from what you had under the old speed limit of twenty miles an hour. We all
620
know that then the police trap became a farce, and it was very difficult to do anything with it, but here you have very much smaller known and defined areas—not denned by whether a driver thinks he ought to go faster or not, but defined actually under the Act—where there has got to be a speed, limit. In those areas it will be very much easier and much more practicable to check the speed by a police trap than it was in the old days when you had the twenty miles per hour speed limit all over the country.
EARL HOWE: I have listened with attention to what I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for saying, as I do without disrespect, I have come to regard as almost a hardy annual on his part. This proposal of the noble Viscount is definitely a proposal to saddle the whole motoring industry, on his own figure, with an expense of anything from £7,000,000 upwards. He proposes to tell the whole motoring industry of this country and all the motor owners of this country that they have got to spend some £7,000,000 to equip themselves with a device the operation of which will be none too certain. Those of your Lordships who were present in the House on a former occasion when the noble Viscount moved a similar clause—I am not sure whether it was in 1930 or whether it was before that—will remember the noble Viscount entertaining us with a sketch upon a piece of paper, where he drew a diagram showing what his proposal now sets out. The noble Viscount has suggested a dial of eight inches in diameter. I have here a measure; this is eight inches in diameter. Now a person with normal eyesight has got to spot something eight inches in diameter sufficiently well to know what it indicates. The hands will be in the centre, and the instrument therefore will have hands only some four inches long. A man will have to be very quick indeed if he is going to be able to take anything like an accurate reading from that—a reading of the accuracy which certainly should be required if you ask every motor owner to fit an instrument costing some £3 10s. apiece.
There are other points about it, and this applies also to all devices of a mechanical nature. The other day I listened with attention to a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He seemed, I thought, a little

621
scornful of the, argument which I put forward on the question of speedometers and he thought I was a little too pessimistic about it. No doubt the noble Lord has experience of speedometers as great as or greater than mine, but I point out to your Lordships—and this applies to the noble Viscount's proposal—that a speedometer is a mechanical device, and a mechanical device of that sort will as a rule operate provided you can secure that it is watertight. The noble Viscount's device is going to be subjected to the worst of the weather in the front of the car and the worst of the weather, and the mud and so on sucked up, behind the car. We all know what the back of a car looks like after having been driven on a muddy road. It has got to compete with that. If it is higher up it is going to be subjected to the worst of the rain and that sort of weather, and is probably going to be more difficult to see than it would be if it were lower down and more within the natural field of vision of a normal person, as he puts it, standing on the pavement.
But mechanical devices all suffer from other defects, and speedometers particularly. If you secure their watertightness they are particularly liable to suffer from condensation. I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I am not too pessimistic on this particular point. Most speedometers, as he will know if he is interested in them, will, after a certain amount of use, show an error of anything up to ten, fifteen, and sometimes twenty per cent. That is a very considerable margin of error. Then again all devices such as the noble Viscount's depend for their operation upon cables. Cables are most unreliable. Everyone of jour Lordships who has a motor car has probably at some time or another had the speedometer out of action owing to the cable breaking. All questions of that sort come in. If you pass this Amendment you will be telling the motoring world that they have got to spend some £7,000,000 on a device which is mechanically very unreliable, and which even when fitted cannot possibly be guaranteed to give accurate results. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that for exactly the same reasons as those which actuated the House in defeating this proposal on a previous occasion, the Committee should reaffirm that decision at the present time.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not wish to be unsympathetic to the noble Viscount, but I must say that I really cannot regard his proposal as practical politics. As your Lordships know, the noble Viscount made an effort to get a provision of this kind inserted in the 1930 Bill, but after full discussion the House decided to reject the proposal. I think that many of the arguments which influenced your Lordships at that time obtain just as strongly at the present moment. Noble Lords who have already spoken have dealt with certain technical aspects of the subject, and technical difficulties which may ensue or may be met with in connection with this matter. I was surprised to hear from the noble Viscount that he had been advised that an instrument of this kind could be made for something between £2 and £3. As I am advised, it would cost a great deal more to manufacture an instrument of that kind, and furthermore it would be very easy to tamper with.
I think it is generally acknowledged that it would have to be of considerable size, a good deal larger than the eight inches suggested. I have not sufficient technical knowledge to say whether an instrument of this kind could be produced, but if it could I have very great doubts whether it would be reliable or at all satisfactory. Whether it could be fitted on to a motor cycle I do not exactly know. At all events it would be extremely difficult to do so. It might conceivably be fitted upon a private motor car, but so far as motor lorries are concerned, wherever this scientific instrument were fixed it would stand an overwhelming chance of being affected by the nature of the load, and the road it was on. I feel that this instrument could not be depended upon, and that it would be entirely unfair to accept it as evidence of whether a car was exceeding the speed limit or not. In view of what I have said and other noble Lords have said I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to ask whether the noble Viscount would be prepared to delete from his Amendment all the words in subsection (1) after "speed indicator" to the end of that subsection. The question of speedometer is, I think, a most important one, and I should be quite ready to support an

623
Amendment that every car should carry a speedometer approved by the Minister. There are very good and cheap speedometers which show the speed that you are going, and record the highest speed you have run, until the button is depressed and it goes down again. I think a speedometer would afford very valuable evidence in case of accidents. It might be argued that the chauffeur might press the button and put the speedometer down again, but it would go very hardly against him if he did so and the evidence snowed he had exceeded that speed. Lord Halsbury's Amendment seems to me to be rather complicated, and I think the great thing is to get into this Bill that every car, whether a private car or lorry, shall carry a speedometer.
LORD ELTON: I was very disappointed that the noble Earl who replied for the Government insisted to such an extent on technical difficulties. I should be the last to oppose the argument of Lord Howe as to the efficiency of speedometers. I have no doubt speedometers do fail to record accurately the speed of a car within four or five miles an hour. I am driven to that conclusion by the fact that so many persons whom I know to be law-abiding citizens pass me with a definite margin of speed when I am persuaded that I am only going thirty miles an hour, according to my speedometer. But it is not errors of three or four miles an hour that we are concerned with now, but with such murderous errors as ten or twenty miles an hour, or more. Are we to be told that the motor industry, with all its skill and enterprise, is totally unable to provide us with some mechanical means which can be relied upon to self-proclaim the rate at which the murderous driver is exceeding the speed limit, not by three or four but by ten, or twenty, or thirty miles an hour? I cannot believe that the motor industry, if there were a real commercial demand for such an instrument, would simply sit down and say: "Impossible." That has not been the spirit which the industry has so far shown, and I do not think it would be the spirit which it would show in those circumstances.
I would ask your Lordships in considering the noble Viscount's proposal to pass away altogether from the question of technicalities to the question of principle. The principle does seem to me to be extremely vital. Your Lordships
624
by an overwhelming majority have accepted the principle that a speed limit should be enforced. The noble Viscount has now suggested what I submit is the only means by which it can be reliably enforced. As I suggested on the Second Reading, experience shows that in Oxford, where your Lordships are aware a speed limit of thirty miles an hour is now enforced, while you get 60 to 70 per cent., approximately, of the law-abiding, citizens observing the regulation, you have 30 per cent. at least not observing it, but reducing, as conversation makes, clear, the practice of evading the regulation to something like a fine art. Here is a suggestion from the noble Viscount which will make it virtually impossible to evade the enforcement of the speed limit to anything like that extent, and I very much hope your Lordships, having already accepted the main principle, will not allow yourselves to be discouraged by discussions about technicalities, but will accept the Amendment on the ground that it will ensure the enforcement of the main purpose of the Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord who has just spoken, and his speech enables me to make my remarks in reply extremely short. There are just one or two observations made by the noble Earls, Lord Plymouth and Lord Howe, to which I should like to reply. First, it is suggested that these instruments could be easily tampered with. I think if you had only one machine on the road there would be some force in that, but if you have every car on the road fitted with such machines, and if one car passed all the others and yet showed by its speedometer that it was keeping within the legal speed limits, surely it would be obvious that its instrument must have been tampered with. You would have a check by all the other cars upon the accuracy of its speedometer.
Then my noble friend Lord Howe made a great deal of the fact that this was going to impose a burden of £7,000,000 on the motor industry. What does it mean? It means—he took my figures—£3 on two and a quarter or two and a third million people who are licensed to drive. If you multiply the number by three it sounds a very large sum, but when you distribute the £7,000,000 among two and a quarter million people it means only £3 to each person. And that is

625
a capital expenditure. Even allowing a considerable amount to keep the machine in order it does not come to an annual expense of more than a very small sum in order to comply with this provision. So far as money is concerned it is almost insulting, if I may say so with respect to the noble Earl, to advance that as an important matter for consideration when we are really debating how many lives we can save on the roads. If it cost twice that sum, and it could be shown that it would save lives, I should certainly recommend your Lordships to pass the Amendment. My noble friend says it would not be applicable to bicycles or lorries. I see no reason in the world why it should not be. I can see no reason why you should not have a dial on a motor bicycle as well as on anything else.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: What size?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It might not need to be quite so big on a motor bicycle.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Well, you have to have on all motor bicycles, as on all motor cars, numbers which have to be of such a size that they can be read in exactly the way I describe. Therefore, all you need have is a dial of similar size in order to enable that to be read, and you have merely to take advice as to what that size should be. It is far easier to read a dial than
to read a number. The dial finger will be simply a black line against a white background. To read a number is a much more difficult matter, and requires a good light, I admit. But a dial, which will be lit up from the back no doubt at night, will be extremely easy to read. I do not believe there would be the slightest difficulty in doing it.
But what strikes me about my noble friend's reply—and this I would press upon him very strongly—is this. This is a matter which has been proposed for some little time past. I should have thought that the Ministry of Transport would have been able to come down to the House and say: "In the course of our great efforts to reduce the slaughter on the roads we have tried experiments with this and many other devices." No such experiments appear to have been tried, otherwise I am quite sure my noble friend would have told us so. That is what I complain about against the Ministry of Transport. They are not in earnest in this matter. They are not really trying their best to reduce the slaughter on the roads, and I earnestly hope that your Lordships will adopt this Amendment, even if it has later to be modified in order to meet the requirements of the advisers of the Government.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided. Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS.

Lansdowne, M.

Selborne, E.

Amulree, L.

Clwyd, L.

Effingham, E.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Gladstone of Hawarden, L.

Midleton, E.

Exmouth, V.

Marley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Onslow, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Plymouth, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Powis, E.

Reading, M.

Stanhope, E.

Bayford, L.

Zetland, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Bingley, L.

Wicklow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Bathurst, E.

Bradford, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clinton, L.

Dudley, E.

Elibank, V.

Daryngton, L.

Feversham, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

de Clifford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Denman, L.

Howe, E.

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Halifax, V.

Gainford, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Long, V.

Harris, L.

Morton, E.

Mersey, V.

Hastings, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Merrivale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Jessel, L.

Nuffield, L.

Stanmore, L.

Joicey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strachie, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Rennell, L.

Stratheden, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rochester, L.

Templemore, L.

Luke, L.

Rockley, L.

Waleran, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Sandhurst, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2:
Amendments of s. 10 of, and First Schedule to, the principal Act.
2.—(1) The First Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for the First Schedule to the principal Act, and references to that Schedule in any enactment shall be construed accordingly.
(2) The following proviso shall be substituted for proviso (a) to subsection (4) of Section ten of the principal Act (which subsection empowers the Minister by regulation to vary the provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act):—
"(a) the Minister shall not have power by regulation under this subsection to vary the speed limit imposed on motor vehicles by Section one of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, as respects the driving thereof on a road in a built-up area, or to impose on motor vehicles in the case of which no speed limit is provided by the First Schedule to that Act any speed limit as respects the driving thereof on a road not, in a built-up area; and."
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words preceding paragraph (a) and insert:
" (2) In subsection (1) of Section ten of the principal Act the words ' and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence ' shall cease to have effect and after the said subsection (1) the following subsection shall be inserted:
' (1A) A person convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment shall in respect of that offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine, not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
The provisions of this subsection shall have effect in substitution for any provision made by or under any other enactment relating to a speed limit for determining the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment to which a person convicted of driving a motor vehicle as aforesaid is to be liable in respect of that offence.'
(3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of the said Section ten:
' (2) A first or second conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a road at a
628
speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment shall not render the person convicted liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence.
(3) A person prosecuted for driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding that limit.'
(4) The following proviso shall be substituted for proviso (a) to subsection (4) of the said Section ten:—"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment and that which follows are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, at end insert:
" (3) The references in subsections (5) and (6) of the said Section ten to an offence under the said section, and the reference in subsection (6) thereof to an infringement of the provisions of the said section, shall be deemed to include references to driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Medical examination of person charged with driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.
" 3.—A person charged with an offence under Section fifteen of the principal Act (which relates to persons driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs) shall be subject, if so required, to be examined and tested with respect, to his condition as soon as may be after his arrest by a registered medical practitioner selected by the police and shall have the right to be examined and tested also, if he so desires, by a registered medical practitioner or other person selected by himself."
The noble Viscount said: Some time ago I read in the Press a case which left the

629
impression on my mind that if a person was charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor car he could either refuse to be medically examined or, if he did consent and was subsequently found to be drunk, such consent was bad owing to the state of his mind. I communicated with one of the leading newspapers in the country to know whether that paper could help me, and that paper replied that it was impossible to trace the case without the name being furnished. The paper believed that some such decision had been arrived at by Mr. Justice Swift. I therefore took the liberty of writing to the private secretary of that learned Judge, and the reply I got was this:
" In reply to your letter of the 14th inst., I am unable to give you the name of the case to which you refer, nor can I tell you where a report of it appears. I have spoken to Mr. Justice Swift, and he instructs me to say that he did not lay down any general proposition of law such as your letter seems to suggest."
There the letter ends. It does not proceed to say what the learned Judge did lay down.
On the advice of one of my noble friends I rang up the Daily Mail, and within half an hour of telephoning to them they had the courtesy to send me a cutting referring to the case from the Evening News, and I propose to read some extracts from it:
" It is possible that some change in the presentation of cases against motorists accused of driving cars while under the influence of drink may be the result of the strong comments of Mr. Justice Swift at Liverpool Assizes in dealing with two charges brought before him.
" A police surgeon had given evidence in one instance that a defendant was under the influence of drink and unfit to drive a car. He had examined him and put him through certain tests.
" The Judge thereupon observed: ' I object to these inroads on British freedom, and the police have no right, to apply tests to a man like the prisoner without his consent. If they say he is able to give consent, then they have no business to come here and say he is drunk, because drunkenness destroys consent.'
" He said the police were entitled to ask a doctor to come and observe a man they had in the cells, but they had no right whatever to put him through tests unless he consented.
" At the Home Office a high official said that the observations of Mr. Justice Swift would be given the most careful consideration. …
630
" One of the best know criminal lawyers in London told the Evening News representative that Mr. Justice Swift had raised a question of the highest importance. ' To my mind.' he said, ' the most serious statement of the Judge is that "drunkenness destroys consent." That means to say that if a man is clear-headed enough to give intelligent consent to an examination by a medical man it can be assumed that be is not drunk. But in many instances a man under the influence of drink may retain some mental clearness while his limbs are incapable of proper action. ' "
If the noble Earl is good enough to accept this Amendment people will know that if they are charged with being under the influence of drink or drugs while in charge of a motor car they will, whether they consent or not, be subject to a medical examination. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will at any rate give this very careful consideration between now and Report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The clause is intended to provide that a person charged with the offence of being under the influence of drink or drugs when in charge of a motor vehicle shall in the first place be obliged to submit to medical examination and test by a doctor selected by the police, and, in the second place, be allowed to be examined and tested by a doctor or other person selected by himself. There is something to be said for the proposal that where drunkenness is an element in an offence the person concerned should not, by refusing to submit to any examination, be able to prevent the ascertainment of the truth as to his condition. The proposed clause is, however, open to objection because it goes too far in some directions and in others not far enough. In terms it applies only to persons who have been charged with the offence in question. In practice it is often impossible for the police to decide, until after medical examination, whether a charge ought properly to be, preferred or not. The person concerned may be ill, and not be under the influence of drink or drugs at all, and in his own interest that possibility ought to be explored before he is charged.
There is a further disadvantage in specifically limiting the right of examination to cases where a charge has been

631
preferred, because it may tend to imply that there is something illegal or improper in making an examination before that stage is reached. On the other hand, the clause appears to be too wide in subjecting to risk of punishment a person who objects to submit himself to tests the nature of which is not specified. The tests might include taking a sample of his blood for the purpose of ascertaining its alcoholic content: or they might be of a more inquisitorial nature. In practice no such provision as that suggested is required or appropriate, either in the interests of the public or of the person who is thought to have committed an offence. In any case where the person's condition is a matter of doubt, it is the well-established practice for the police to call in a doctor to examine him; and if he wishes to be examined also by a doctor nominated by himself, he would invariably be allowed so to do, and the police have instructions to that effect. The truth is that medical examination does not lend itself to compulsion backed by legal sanctions. Its effectiveness is largely dependent on the co-operation of the patient, and with the exercise of commonsense and tact there is seldom any difficulty in obtaining that co-operation. I am afraid, in these circumstances, I am unable to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am rather disappointed that the noble Earl does not hold out any hope of putting in something. He stated that the Amendment went too far in some directions and not far enough in others, and in the extract which I read the learned Judge said that consent, if it were given while under the influence of drink, was bad, and therefore no medical evidence could be brought before the court that the man was drunk. I do not know how you are going to get a conviction in these cases, and I seriously ask the noble Earl to go into this matter further before the Report stage. I shall not put down an Amendment, but I think he might reasonably do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Penalty for reckless or dangerous driving.
".Two years shall be substituted for six months as the maximum term of imprisonment to which a person shall be liable on conviction on indictment for an offence under Section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving)."
The noble and learned Lord said: The matters with which your Lordships have been dealing since the sitting of the House this afternoon arise mainly from the proposal in Clause 1 of this Bill, which establishes a speed limit and necessitates provision for its due enforcement. The Amendment of which I have given Notice and a subsequent Amendment which really is a species of sequel are Amendments which deal with a larger matter and with, perhaps, a more serious aspect of the difficulties which arise from the condition of road traffic at the present time. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendment deal with the class of motor driving which is a criminal offence already, and which in some cases is an offence punishable as felony upon a conviction for manslaughter, but other cases—and they are the cases to which the Amendment immediately before your Lordships refers—are statutory offences in respect of driving to the danger of the public. They are, of course, capable of being dealt with by summary process under the provisions of the Act of 1930, and they are also capable of being dealt with by indictment, because they are Common Law offences.
The two Amendments which I have drafted are intended to deal with the existing provisions of the law in respect of offences which endanger life and which result in the death of the person concerned, or which endanger life without resulting in the death of the person concerned. At present the law is in a somewhat complex state. Under the old law, before 1915 you could not have dealt with the offence of driving to the danger of other persons using the road by an indictment combined with an indictment for manslaughter, although the driving to the danger of the public had been attended by the death of some person who was involved in the casualty. In 1915 the law of indictment was amended so that you could combine a charge of manslaughter with the less serious charge of driving so as to involve danger to life, and that was supposed to be the law down to last

633
year; but last year the matter came to be considered in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that Court decided that, although it is possible to have the two matters charged by way of indictment, it is essential in the interests of justice or essential under the existing law that they should be charged in separate indictments, and that puts a serious difficulty in the way of the road authorities and the Police.
It is very difficult to know, upon a first view of matters of that kind, whether, where death has occurred in a case and where there has also been driving to the peril of the public, the death which is caused is a death caused by felony so as to be manslaughter. That is difficult indeed to know, and the prosecuting authority is often left in the perplexing position of not knowing whether, in a very serious case, to make the graver charge and at the same time, under the decision of last year, to formulate the less grave charge, or to formulate the less grave charge with a reasonable certainty that it may prevail. If a man has been guilty of manslaughter he ought of course to be dealt with much more gravely than a man who has been guilty of reckless driving but has not taken life or caused the loss of life by his action. The two Amendments which I have framed are intended to facilitate proceedings, to simplify the law, and to put the public authorities back in the position in which they may charge the person apparently guilty of an offence with the whole matter, the larger and the lesser offence, so that when the matter comes to be investigated he may be found guilty of the greater offence or of the lesser offence and be dealt with accordingly. In the one case he would be dealt with on the footing that he had been guilty of felony, in the other he would be dealt with on the footing that he had been guilty of a much less serious misdemeanour.
What I have proposed in the more general Amendment which I have drafted after Clause 30 is a provision that
" Upon the, trial of a person who is indicted for manslaughter in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle by him, it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that ho is guilty of an offence under Section eleven of the principal Act "—
that is under Section 11 of the Act of 1930—
634
" (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) "—
that is the minor offence of reckless driving—
"to find him guilty of that offence whether or not the requirements of Section twenty-one of the principal Act (which relates to notice of prosecutions) have been satisfied as respects that offence."
If he has been charged with the major offence he cannot complain that the minor offence is taken into consideration, so that the technical provision is of no consequence, but it really will be, as I believe and as I am told by those who have practical knowledge of the matter, a good thing in the interests of those who have regard for the safety of the road that, where a prosecution of this kind takes place, a man who is not clearly shown to have been guilty of a felony—of manslaughter—but is clearly shown to have been guilty of the statutory or Common Law offence of reckless driving to the danger of the public, may be dealt with upon the spot, and dealt with as part of the business of answering the charge which is made.
If you are going to have the larger matter included in a provision of that kind it seems to me that it is desirable that you should give to the Court which will deal with the matter by way of sentence, in case of conviction, a larger power, a larger discretion, in respect to sentence. The Amendment immediately before your Lordships provides for that. It provides that in a case which comes near to manslaughter the Court which is dealing with the matter, which will be a Court of competent jurisdiction, may deal with it on the greater footing, so that under the larger Amendment a man who is accused of manslaughter may be found not guilty of manslaughter but guilty of the minor offence of reckless driving, and when the Court comes to consider how near the offence of which he is found guilty comes to the greater offence it will be its duty to consider whether he shall be dealt with upon the present footing in respect of this offence where no question of manslaughter comes in, or whether he shall be dealt with on the broader footing. I do not propose to take up more of your Lordships' time and I hope that these proposals will commend themselves to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
EAEL HOWE: I hesitate to intervene in the discussion on what is obviously a very technical question and one which it is quite beyond my competence to deal with, but one remark of the noble and learned Lord impressed me very much. That was his reference to a competent court. One of the troubles under the existing Motor Car Acts has been undoubtedly the question of what is a competent court. All sorts of extraordinary decisions have been given in different courts. Some courts have administered the law with great severity—as many think, with undue severity—others with great lenience. It is very largely because of the inequality of the administration of the law that a great many of the difficulties under the existing Acts have arisen.
I cannot understand why the suggestion made the other day cannot be adopted, why we cannot have some form of court set up to deal with all motor cases. Such a court should be constituted more like an Admiralty Court than anything we have now. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Admiralty Courts are constituted which consist of a Wreck Commissioner who, in dealing with offences and accidents occurring at sea, is assisted by nautical assessors specially chosen for their ability. There is nothing whatever in the existing Acts which ensures that a motor driver will be brought before a court that is competent to deal with the matter. He may come before a court composed of people who have no knowledge whatever of motor driving. If we had some unification, or codification or whatever may be the proper word to use, in the administration of the law things which now happen would not happen. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I listened to them with the greatest attention and tried to understand them. I have not put down an Amendment because. I have not been able to draft one to provide for the setting up of traffic courts, but I hope very much that the matter will receive further consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: After the very clear explanation of the Amendment
636
given by the noble and learned Lord, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more than that the Government accept this Amendment and will accept his second Amendment also.
Clause 4:
Exceeding speed limits and careless driving (endorsement of licence and disqualification).
4.—(1) The court before which a person is convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment, or of an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving), shall order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on any licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part I of the principal Act held by the person convicted.
(3) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5) of Section eight of the principal Act:
"(5) Where an order has been made in respect of a person under this Part of this Act, or the corresponding provisions of any Act repealed by this Act, requiring the endorsement of any licence held by him, he shall be entitled, either on applying for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act or subject to a payment of a fee of five shillings and subject to surrender of any subsisting licence on application at any time, to have issued to him a new licence free from endorsements—
(a) if he has, during a continuous period of three years or upwards since the order was made, had no such order made against him, or no such order other than an order made more than one year before the date of his application, and by reason only of a conviction for the offence of driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding a speed limit; or
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment or of." The noble Viscount said: I do not think it ought to be obligatory for a bench to endorse a licence when a man is convicted of exceeding the speed limit because the speed may have been only just over the limit and over a very short distance of road. It has frequently happened when I have moved Amendments that I have been told that we must not be vindictive. Surely to make it obligatory to endorse a licence when a man has exceeded a speed limit is a little vindictive. It is a very different

637
matter when the offence is that of careless driving. Over and over again in Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, where there have been alternative charges, the first being a charge of dangerous driving and the second a charge of negligent driving, the first summons has been dismissed and a large fine has been inflicted on the second summons, showing what the bench really thought as to the seriousness of the offence although they did not like to convict of dangerous driving. If you make it obligatory for a bench to endorse a licence for negligent driving they cannot get out of it and I think that would be a very good thing.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out from (" of ") to (" an ") in line 15.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE: This Amendment really covers the same ground as the Amendment I have on the Paper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not quite. The noble Lord wishes to make it optional in both cases.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: It covers part of the ground and subsequent Amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, deal with the matter in rather a different way—perhaps a better one. I do not want to adhere to my particular method any more than I wish to press the method suggested in the other Amendments on the Paper. It is the principle which I wish to bring to the notice of the Government because I think there may be some hardship in applying the clause as it now stands. If the driver of a motor vehicle has his licence endorsed for exceeding the speed limit, that endorsement may in certain cases, if he is a taxi-driver or a van-driver, mean a possible loss of livelihood. That seems to me altogether too severe. I do not for one moment want to relax the severity of the enforcement of the speed limit, but I think in this case it should be left to the discretion of the magistrates. The clause as it stands appears to me to be too stringent. I should be content not to move my Amendment if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would express his desire to meet us by accepting either the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount or the
638
Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am in some difficulty here. I cannot see my way to accept any of these Amendments. I cannot accept the view that this clause is too severe. This is a penalty for infringing the speed limit. The apprehension that has been expressed with regard to the speed limit is that the whole crux of the matter may lie in the difficulty of enforcing the speed limit. Unless you treat it as an offence and take steps to deter people from exceeding the speed limit you will undoubtedly increase the difficulty. Personally I can hardly imagine a case in which a man would lose his job for exceeding the speed limit in one case and having his licence endorsed. What is important to bear in mind is that unless you have a provision of this kind a driver may be repeatedly convicted of offences against the speed limit in different courts, and magistrates will have no knowledge of his record as an habitual breaker of the law, There is a further point: if you make this provision for the endorsement of a licence for exceeding the speed limit an enabling one rather than a mandatory one, you will get this particular provision administered in different ways in different areas, and you will get no proper uniformity whatsoever, and certainly no proper record of how a man has been driving in the past, which it is after all important to obtain as far as possible.
I do not know whether I had better deal with the other Amendments concerned with this particular point. Of course the Amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are all germane to this particular question. His first Amendment provides that:
" … nothing in this section shall require a licence to be endorsed unless in the opinion of the court the person convicted was driving at a speed inconsistent with the safety of the public."
So far as I can make out, if that provision were passed we should be no further forward than we are at the present moment. A man who had been driving at a speed inconsistent with the safety of the public would no doubt be liable to a charge of careless driving, but I think the, important thing is to emphasise that both careless driving and exceeding the speed limit in built-up areas are offences which affect public safety, actually or

639
potentially, in every case. It is perfectly true that at the moment and in the particular circumstances nobody may have in fact been endangered, but public safety cannot be secured unless motorists are always careful, and keep their speed within reasonable bounds. It is for those reasons that I regret to say the Government are not prepared to accept these Amendments.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe had escaped my attention. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has pointed out that it is better than mine, I have studied it and I agree that it is better, and therefore I propose to withdraw mine if my noble friend will go to a Division on his.
EARL HOWE: I am in a little difficulty, because the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has already partially dealt with my Amendment without hearing what I have to say with regard to it, and has also somewhat prejudged the issue by saying that he will not have anything to do with it when I move it. But I am not going to be deterred from moving it; I am going to move it just the same, and I will try to explain to your Lordships as shortly as I can why—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Had we not better get rid of the other Amendment first?
EARL HOWE: May I ask the Lord Chairman whether that will be necessary?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Will the noble Viscount withdraw his Amendment first?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have said that I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment provided that the noble Earl will go to a Division on his Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that the noble Viscount had withdrawn his Amendment, because when the noble Viscount said what he did say the noble Earl had not announced his intentions with regard to his Amendment. If the noble Viscount now withdraws his Amendment then we come to an Amendment in the name of Lord Ponsonby.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (1), to substitute "may" for "shall." The noble Lord said: I do not move my Amendment.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
" Provided that nothing in this section shall require a licence to be endorsed unless in the opinion of the court the person convicted was driving at a speed inconsistent with the safety of the public."
The noble Earl said: I will endeavour to explain this Amendment as shortly as possible. Subsection (1) requires magistrates to endorse a driver's licence whenever they convict (a) for exceeding the speed limit or (b) for careless driving. If you had a permissive clause I submit to your Lordships that it would be almost the same as leaving out the clause altogether, which I do not advocate, because magistrates have power under the existing Act of 1930 to endorse the licence whenever they convict for an offence. I cannot see that the Minister has ever been able to give us any reason why we are to refuse a permissive power to magistrates which has previously been defended by Ministers of Transport from the very Bench upon which the noble Earl sits; and he has not dealt with the arguments which they have used.
I quite appreciate the intention of the Government to make the penalties under the Bill as severe as they possibly can, and where an offence is one which endangers life or is of a grave character I entirely support that point of view. But under this speed limit you are going to have a number of technical convictions; they will be nothing more. They will be cases where either the police have timed a particular driver over a particular stretch or where he has been followed by a police car, and it is merely alleged that he has exceeded the speed limit. The police will at once be asked: "Do you allege danger?" and they will say "No." In those circumstances is it really reasonable to deal with the case with such severity as is involved in an endorsement of the licence? Because under the provisions of the Bill the endorsement of the licence a sufficient number of times will certainly entail imprisonment, and in the case of a working man will inevitably entail the loss of his job, no matter what the Minister may say to the contrary. I

641
submit to your Lordships that if you make the penalties too severe the courts will hesitate much more before recording a conviction. I feel that if we want to get justice administered we must have a system of justice which by the general consent of the population meets the needs of the case.
Under this speed-limit provision I am quite certain that we are going to get a large number of convictions of people who have exceeded the speed limit quite inadvertently. People who are not law breakers and who never set out with the idea of breaking the law or anything of that sort will possibly find themselves exceeding the speed limit quite inadvertently and will be brought before the court. Is it really reasonable and is it right that in circumstances such as those, where the offence is only a technical one, we should take away from the magistrates their discretion and say to them: "You are to endorse this man's licence."? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that unless this provision were retained there would be no adequate record. The Police have the complete record of every rider on the road and the record is always brought up in court. The only difference is that if this Bill passes as it stands, it will be brought up before conviction, whereas if my Amendment is accepted, previous convictions will come up after conviction. I do not know whether it is necessary to quote the arguments used by the Minister of Transport in the Standing Committee of another place which considered the Bill, but I feel that no sufficient case has yet been made out for interfering with the discretion of the magistrates.
I have here certain figures which are extracted from the Homo Office Return for 1932, dated May 26, 1933. They are taken from pages 2 and 3. The offences in question are numbered 5, 6 and 7. No. 5 is exceeding the speed limit. The total number of convictions in 1932 for exceeding the speed limit were 31,769, and of those cases only 251 were thought to justify the endorsement of the licence. Your Lordships will see from those figures which I have given what a tremendous alteration in the law will be brought about if the proposal of the Government is accepted. In the case of driving recklessly or at a speed and in a manner dangerous, out of 3,068 convictions 2,408
642
licences were endorsed. I think therefore it cannot be said that the courts before which these cases have been brought have dealt with the matter with undue leniency. They have dealt with them very properly; they have endorsed the licences in more than two-thirds of the cases brought before them where the safety of life has been concerned, but where the offence has been merely exceeding the speed limit it has not been thought to be necessary to endorse the licence.
There are members of your Lordships' House who have been charged with exceeding the speed limit on the Mall. I ask any one of your Lordships, is it really reasonable to say that where, a man has exceeded the speed limit, for instance, in one of the Royal Parks it is necessary to have the fact endorsed upon his licence? I know that that is a different limit from the one proposed by the Bill, but at the same time I feel that it is important not to interfere with the discretionary power of magistrates except where it is necessary. I agree that it is to some extent necessary where the safety of life is concerned, but I feel that the Minister has really made out no case for the endorsement where a technical offence and nothing else has taken place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: As I withdrew my Amendment I would like to support the Amendment proposed by Lord Howe, and I feel sure that the Government, now that they have heard the case put by Lord Howe, will change their minds. He did not quite carry me with him in the last part of his speech, when he said that noble Lords who had exceeded the speed limit in the parks ought not to have their licences endorsed. I should certainly endorse them if they did that. I am concerned with those wretched taxicab drivers and van drivers who are a hundred yards past the point where the speed limit is going to be enforced, and are found travelling at thirty-five miles an hour. There is no question of danger to the public, but they are going to have their licences endorsed because some zealous police constable catches them.

643
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says it would not be considered to the discredit of one of these drivers to have it endorsed on his licence that he had exceeded the speed limit. I very much doubt that. I think that if he were seeking for a job the first thing he would be asked would be whether he had a clean licence, and if he had not the endorsement would be sufficient, without the reasons for it, to prevent him from getting a job. I hope the noble Earl will really consider this matter. I am all for the strict enforcement of the speed limit, but I do think there is such a tremendous range between inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by a few miles and scorching that the magistrates should be allowed discretion in deciding the matter. It should not be made mandatory upon them to endorse the licence.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I wish to support the principle of the Bill, but I confess that on this point I feel more in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I feel there is considerable danger in making this provision mandatory. One of the troubles which will ensue from it is that which has been referred to by Lord Ponsonby, which I think does deserve consideration. It is not intended that there shall be no power to impose an endorsement of the licence. There will be the power, and it would seem to me to be a bad thing to take, away all the discretion of the magistrates, and to insist, however technical the offence may be, that nevertheless there must be endorsement of the licence. It will undoubtedly affect those who are following such employment as that of taxicab driver or a driver of other vehicles, and I think it is pressing the law a little too far in this direction.
May I suggest another consideration? If you insist upon this provision being made mandatory there is a danger that a magistrate, when considering whether or not to convict, will sometimes be influenced by the fact that he is bound if he convicts to endorse the man's licence, and he is likely to take into consideration the effect which that endorsement will have upon a working man who has got to get his living by driving. This consideration may induce him to give a caution and not convict in cases where but for this mandatory direction he would otherwise convict and caution afterwards.
644
I do not think that the past is a very good criterion as to what will happen in the future. The figures which have been quoted were no doubt in a period when the speed limit was of a different character, and when there was undoubtedly a general opinion that it was a little absurd to have a speed limit, but the provisions of this Bill are quite different. In this case you have a speed limit within the restricted areas mentioned, and I cannot but think that a magistrate when dealing with a case of this kind will not hesitate to endorse the licence, unless he thinks that the offence was really only a technical offence. I hope the Government will give further consideration to this matter, always bearing in mind that if there is a case which approaches in any way the necessity for endorsement of the licence, of course the magistrates, having discretion and power, will not hesitate to order the endorsement. Do not, however, make it a necessary part of the conviction that the licence should be endorsed.
LORD JESSEL: I would like to ask the Government exactly what endorsement of the licence means, because I have not, like some noble Lords, been convicted and had my licence endorsed. What really are the words of the endorsement? Would it be stated that a man has driven thirty-five miles an hour when he ought not to have exceeded the speed limit of thirty? An endorsement may mean all sorts of things. If the record of the offence is clearly set forth on the endorsement that is one thing, but if all cases are endorsed in the same manner it might be hard on some man who wants to earn his living.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: As I understand the law at present there is discretion in the magistrates whether or not to endorse the licence. We have heard from Lord Howe that in point of fact they have exercised their discretion in an overwhelming number of cases by not endorsing the licence. I think that is very unsatisfactory indeed, and I am not satisfied that the Amendment will assist in that matter. On the contrary, I think it will make it more difficult, because the magistrate will have to be satisfied, first, that the speed limit has been exceeded, and secondly, that the man was driving at a speed inconsistent with the safety of the public. He would

645
have to take evidence of that, and all sorts of things would be shown. There would be evidence called that there was nobody in the road, and the magistrate would be precluded by the Amendment from endorsing the licence, however badly he may think of the offence, unless he can say quite honestly that he is quite satisfied that the speed was so great as to be dangerous to the public.
I think it would be a dangerous provision to put in the Bill, and I personally hope that the Government will stick to the Bill as it stands. If any Amendment is put in it ought to be turned round the other way, and it should be provided that the fact that a man was driving at a speed which exceeded the speed limit should be evidence that he was driving at a speed which wan inconsistent with the safety of the public, unless the magistrate was satisfied to the contrary by conclusive evidence. Then he might have a discretion, but only a discretion in that case. I confess that, in spite of the possibility of hard cases, it seems to me that the simpler course is to leave the Bill as it is, and I doubt very much whether anybody will suffer very much from it. If it becomes known that all cases of exceeding the speed limit are mentioned on the licence it will not in fact have so deleterious an effect as now an endorsement of the licence has, because the latter conveys not only that the speed limit was exceeded but was exceeded in a way that was injurious to the public. That might well injure a man in his prospects. I should have thought that the mere fact that the man exceeded the speed limit on one occasion is mentioned on the licence would not hurt his prospects in the least. I believe it is important to have some hold on those people who habitually exceed the speed limit. When you have two or three endorsements of that kind I think their licences ought to be endorsed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question? The clause reads:
" The court … shall order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on any licence. …"
I should like to know whether the word "particulars" covers the actual number of miles an hour that the man was going.
LORD CRANWORTH: I had made up my mind to support this Amendment
646
until Lord Ponsonby rose and said this would be very hard on lorry drivers going down the main roads. I gather that the noble Lord does not live on one of the main roads himself, but I understand from such of my friends as do that it is the lorries going down main roads at speeds considerably in excess of thirty miles an hour who destroy the roads entirely, make such a noise that the inhabitants cannot sleep at night, and are destroying their buildings on the road. So I think I shall change my mind and support the Government in this cast.
LORD CLWYD: Speaking as one who has had considerable experience in adjudicating upon these cases on the bench I should be very glad if the Government would adhere to their view on this Amendment. I would rather have the Bill as it stands, but in any event, having regard to the importance of the issue at stake, I hope that the Government will take some little further time to weigh up all the considerations before they announce any definite decision in regard to this Amendment. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that magistrates throughout the country have expressed a view on this point.
LORD GAINFORD: May I appeal to the Government to leave this question till the Report stage? It seems to me that magistrates should have discretionary powers as to whether they should endorse a licence or not. At the same time, I do not think they ought to be specifically compelled to do it. I think words might be introduced which would deal with both points and on the Report stage we might all come to an agreement.
EARL HOWE: If it would be any help to the Government and they would like more time to consider it, I need hardly say I should be only too glad to withdraw the Amendment now and bring it up on Report, perhaps in a more acceptable form.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for having made that suggestion. In view of what has been said, it clearly is incumbent on the Government to review this matter further. The real point that we had in mind was the question of whether a magistrate should have a driver's full

647
record or not before him, if the man were convicted. I am glad that the noble Earl has consented to withdraw, because I doubt very much whether, if anything is done, this is the proper way to do it. But I certainly give the assurance that the Government will go into the matter carefully. If the Amendments are put down again on the Report stage the Government will go into the matter and see what can be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "or of a conviction for an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving)." The noble Earl said: This is the same Amendment, but referring to careless driving, but I am afraid I am not so sanguine as to the attitude of the Government on this question. I think the matter had better be considered as a whole and I will not move this Amendment until the Report stage.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Tests of competence to drive, of new applicants for licences and of offenders ordered to be tested.
(5) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the nature of tests of competence to drive for the purposes of this section, to the selection and appointment of persons by whom they may be conducted, to evidence of the results thereof and generally with respect thereto, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, regulations made under this section may provide—

(a) for requiring a person submitting himself for a test to provide a vehicle for the purposes thereof;

(b) for requiring a person submitting himself for a test to pay to the person conducting the test such fee, not exceeding ten shillings, as may be specified in the regulations;

and different regulations may be made with respect to tests of competence to drive different classes or descriptions of vehicles.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, after (" Act ") insert (" which relates to careless driving ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
" () Where the applicant for the grant of a licence to drive has paid to the licensing authority a fee for the issue of a provisional licence to enable him to learn to drive a motor vehicle he shall not be required to pay a further fee on the issue of a licence to drive."
The noble Lord said: This is what I call the "door-keeper's Amendment," because it is brought up really at the request of a door-keeper of your Lordships' House. He has a stiff leg, and he has to have a test for driving, for which they charge him five shillings. Having passed the test, he then requires a proper licence, which, again, he has to pay for, and I feel this is a hardship. His provisional licence might be a permanent one, without making an additional charge. I really do not think that the licensing authority should be permitted to charge twice, simply because a man has to take a provisional licence before he can get a proper one.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The fee to be paid to the licensing authority for the issue of any licence is not a fee in the nature of a tax but is a payment in respect of the clerical expenses involved in registration. It is true that the initial cost of opening the record in respect of a particular driver is probably higher than that of the cost of mere renewal and, logically, there might be grounds for requiring a higher fee when the name of a driver is first entered on the books of a licensing authority and allowing a lower fee on renewals. In practice, however, it has been found more convenient alike to the licensing authority and to the driver to equate the fee at a flat fee of 5s. The same principle clearly applies in the case of the issue of a substantive licence after a provisional licence has been granted. At present it would be necessary for a person to pay 5s. for a provisional licence to pass his test and then, having passed his test, he would have to pay 5s. for the substantive licence, and afterwards he pays 5s. every year to renew his licence. I am informed that the local authorities make no profit out of this. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 10, after (" the ") insert (" qualifications ")
Page 8, line 11, after (" conducted ") insert (" and to the revocation of any appointment ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EAUL HOWE EAUL HOWE moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (b), to insert:
" and such regulations shall provide—
(c) for ensuring that a person who fails to pass a test shall not be eligible to be tested by the same or any other person before the expiration of a period of six months;
(d) for approving the fitness of persons to be appointed to conduct the tests and for withdrawing any appointment if the tests are insufficient or unsatisfactory."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put on the Paper with the idea of trying to ensure that the tests for drivers shall be real tests and shall be carried out in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Your Lordships may perhaps recollect that on the Second Heading I quoted from the reply of the Minister of Transport in another place. He was asked what would happen when a man had failed to pass the test—what does he do? The answer given on that occasion in reply to the honourable Member for Croydon, was:
" The simple remedy of the man who is turned down by an examiner but who thinks he has been unfairly turned down is to go to another examiner."
And at a later stage he said:
" A man will be able, if dissatisfied with the decision of the examiner who has turned him down, to go to another examiner."
That seems to knock the whole bottom out of these tests for drivers. I want them to be real tests. The nature of the tests is within the jurisdiction of the Ministry, but I think it is quite unreasonable, when an applicant has failed, that he should be able to go round the corner and get hold of some friend who is on the Minister's panel and who will pass him.
That opens up an infinite prospect of all sorts of hanky-panky, to put it mildly, and in my opinion it is not in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. It is possible the Minister will tell me that the Amendment is not required, but if he does so I hope he will be able to give me some assurance that the man or
650
woman who has failed to pass the driving test will not be able to come up again for a certain specific period. I suggest six months, but if the Minister thought a lesser period would fit the case I should agree to it, but I do want these tests to be real tests, and in this way I am convinced we shall do a great deal to improve the standard of driving on the roads of the country.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 21, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I can assure the noble Earl that the Government equally want this to be a real test. I am afraid I somewhat misled the House when I said the last Amendment was a drafting Amendment. It deals with the particular point at issue. I refer to the Amendment on page 8, line 11, after "conducted," to insert "and to the revocation of any appointment "—that is, in connection with the persons who conduct these tests. That I understand to be the point the noble Earl has in mind, and we are very grateful to him for having drawn our attention to the necessity of obtaining powers of revocation. I hope, therefore, my Amendment has met the second part of his Amendment. In connection with the first part of his Amendment—
" (c) for ensuring that a person who fails to pass a test shall not be eligible to be tested by the same or any other person before the expiration of a period of six months;"
the noble Earl will see I have put an Amendment on the Paper which follows this one dealing with this point. The wording of it is as follows:
" (c) for ensuring that a person submitting himself for a test and failing to pass that test shall not be eligible to submit himself to another test by the same or any other person before the expiration of a prescribed period."
The main difference between our two Amendments is that the noble Earl sets down a period of six months, whereas my Amendment leaves the prescribed period to the discretion of the Minister.
In my view six months is rather a long time to fix before a man can submit himself for a second test. The noble Earl knows much more about these things than I do, but a man can learn to drive in a much shorter time than six months, and it would be rather hard if six months

651
were the minimum time that had to elapse before he could submit himself to a second test. I would, therefore, ask my noble friend whether he would be prepared to accept my Amendment, which lays it down that a man who has failed in one test cannot submit himself for a second test before the expiration of a prescribed period.
EARL HOWE: Could my noble friend possibly say what he has in mind regarding the prescribed period?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Perhaps I might say what is in my mind, but I am not quite certain what is in the mind of the Minister. I should think a month or two.
EARL HOWE: I quite realise the force of what the noble Earl has said and that my Amendment is, to some extent, redundant, but I do attach great importance to these tests for drivers, and if you make the tests worth while passing people are going to take much more trouble about passing them. If you make a definite period, say, one month or two months at least—I should have thought nothing less than three months—people are going to take these tests much more seriously. They are going to take much more trouble over them. While I am naturally quite ready to withdraw my Amendment and accept that of the noble Earl, I hope at the same time the Minister of Transport will not be unduly lenient in the matter of the prescribed period.
LORD DANESFORT: Might I suggest that the noble Earl put in at the end of his Amendment some such words as "prescribed period, being not less than three months"? I think there is great force in what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. This is a very serious matter, and one month, which is apparently the period the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has in mind, seems rather a short interval between the time when a man is rejected and when he may have another chance of being accepted. Could the noble Earl not consider this point between now and Report?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I shall naturally consider the matter between now and Report, but I cannot give any undertaking to accept these words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert in subsection (5), after paragraph (b):
" (c) for ensuring that a person submitting himself for a test and failing to pass that test shall not be eligible to submit himself to another test by the same or any other person before the expiration of a proscribed period."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 21, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert after subsection (5):
" (6) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the licensing authority to grant a licence may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which the applicant resides, and on any such appeal the court may make such order as it thinks fit and any order so made shall be binding on the licensing authority."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear. It is to provide some sort of appeal court to which a person can go who feels, aggrieved at the refusal of his licence. The idea is that the examiner would appear jointly with the examinee before the court of summary jurisdiction and would give evidence before the court as to the reasons which had actuated him when he refused to pass the examinee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFEERIN AND AVA: I must say I think this is rather a dangerous Amendment, because surely everyone who fails to pass the test will feel aggrieved. Everyone knows that nothing annoys people more than to be told they are bad drivers. Every single person who is turned down by an examiner will attempt to take his grievance to the local court and inflict a great deal of unnecessary work on it. If a man fails, surely he can wait for three months and at the end of that time try again, and, if he has been failed unjustly, the next time he may have better luck. It seems to me, therefore, this Amendment is quite unnecessary.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think this Amendment is really misconceived. It is based on the provisions of Clause 5

653
(5) of the principal Act, but the two cases are not analogous at all. One deals with appeals regarding revocation of licences on the ground generally of disability or some such thing, and this would deal with an appeal against being ploughed in a test. Clearly it is quite impossible for a court of summary jurisdiction to decide that matter of fact whether a particular person is fit to drive a car or not. May I explain a little more fully? In so far as Clause 5 of the principal Act is concerned, in practice, these provisions apply only to the case of a driver who is refused a licence by the licensing authority. He may appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction, which has power to make such provisions as it thinks fit. Then, similar provisions are made in Section 82 (1) with regard to the vocational licence for drivers of public service vehicles which are granted by the Traffic Commissioners. Any applicant for such a licence, who feels aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Commissioners to grant it, may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. In practice, the appeals by applicants for these vocational licences which have been made to the courts have been appeals in cases where the Traffic Commissioners have refused licences, either on the grounds of the man's record of past conduct or on the grounds of physical disability. Bad moral character may be important in the case of a driver who has to take a 'bus single-handed over lonely country roads; it is not equally relevant in the case of the ordinary driving licence. As to physical disability, the Commissioners may, in their discretion, require in the driver of a public service vehicle a higher standard of physical ability than that necessary for the ordinary driving licence; and the court may review that discretion. No case has occurred, within the knowledge of the Ministry, in which appeal has been made to the court by an applicant for a vocational driver's licence on the ground that the driving test to which he was submitted was unreasonable or unsatisfactory. The question of moral turpitude of the driver does not enter into the question of the new general driving test.
If power is given to the court, in the present case, as proposed by the noble Lord, in what manner is the court to exercise it? I agree that some useful
654
publicity might be so given, if a case arose in which an authorised examiner refused to pass a candidate for reasons other than that of driving incompetency. In general, however, the court is not a body which can properly be called upon to decide the questions of fact (on which the licensing authority itself has no jurisdiction) whether the candidate is or is not capable of using the controls on his machine in the proper manner, and other germane questions. The proposed jurisdiction therefore does not appear to be one which a court of summary jurisdiction could exercise. The Statute says that an applicant must pass the test before he gets a driving licence. The court can merely ask: "Have you passed the test?" and if the answer is in the negative, they will know that the licensing authority is prevented by law from issuing the licence; and the applicant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the refusal of the licensing authority. In those circumstances I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I quite understand the argument which has been used by the noble Earl and I see the force of what he has said. I am not very much in favour of a court of summary jurisdiction as an appeal court, but I did think it was desirable that some form of appeal should be allowed. I do not know whether the noble Earl is quite satisfied on that particular point. I think I should like, if I may be allowed, to withdraw this Amendment now and further consider the matter, and, perhaps, with your Lordships' leave, I may bring it up on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of ss. (3) of s. 19 of the principal Act.
" .—(1) An order varying the periods of time prescribed in Section nineteen of the principal Act (which relates to the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty) may be made under subsection (3) of the said section so as to have effect only as respects a particular class of public service vehicles, or only as respects public service vehicles when used in particular circumstances.
(2) Where an application is made under the said subsection (3) as respects drivers of stage carriages when used either—

655

(a) on regular services under a road service licence to which a condition requiring the observance of a timetable is attached; or

(b) on regular services in respect of which no road service licence is required;
then, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Industrial Court and the Minister that the conditions under which the services are operated are such as to secure that the periods deemed to be continuous periods for the purposes of the said section during which the vehicles are driven include times in which the drivers are able to obtain rest and refreshment, the Industrial Court, in advising on the application, and the Minister in giving his determination thereon, may have regard to those conditions."

The noble Earl said: During the discussion of the Bill in another place, both in Committee and on Report Amendments were moved designed to give elasticity in certain cases to the hours of work of drivers of certain types of stage carriages. Section 19 of the principal Act, which deals with the limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty, is expressly stated to be enacted "with a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue."
The section is a general safety provision and cannot appropriately be altered (as was proposed in another place) so as to exempt from its provisions any case in which there is an agreed schedule of hours between employers and employed. The section of the principal Act already allows variations of the prescribed rest periods to be made by the Minister after referring an application for variation to the Industrial Court, provided that the Minister "is of opinion that such variation is not likely to be detrimental to the public safety." As the section stands, any variation order must apply to whole classes of vehicles throughout the United Kingdom; a variation order may not be drawn so as to apply only to stage carriages or to stage carriages on a particular type of service.
The present Amendment is designed to allow the Minister to make a variation order applicable only to certain particular types of stage carriage services, in which rigid application of the present rules has necessitated a large amount of split shift working. The cases in question are relatively long distance stage services in provincial towns where, under the present
656
rules, a driver has to be "laid off" for a period of two or three hours between one journey and another but must be "laid off" at the distant terminus away from his home. All that the Amendment does is to enable the Minister and the Industrial Court to take into consideration the particular circumstances of this type of operation and to enable the Minister to make a variation order limited in its reference to such type and not in general reference to all public service vehicles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I understand this new clause has been drafted after consultation between the Minister of Transport and the General Workers' Union. I desire to say, on behalf of the union, that they are quite prepared to accept this clause, although it does not go quite as far as they desired, but they have understood from the Minister that if in practice this clause does not actually meet the case he will be prepared later on to reconsider it.
Clause 6 [Extension of power to regulate use of appliances for signalling approach by sound]:
EARL HOWE: I had intended to put an Amendment on the Paper to reject Clause 6, not because I particularly want to see the clause rejected but because that seemed to be the best way of securing some indication from the Minister of Transport as to what is intended under the clause. Only so recently as on Saturday the Anti-Noise League, we are told in the Press, had a conference at Oxford and a distinguished member of your Lordships' House is reported to have said:
" We hold that the noisy driver is a dangerous driver, that noise and death go hand in hand in this matter, and that to abolish needless and noisy hooting would be greatly to diminish accidents."
He was followed by numerous other distinguished members of the League, one of whom said he had been sleeping in a room on the High, and the night had been made hideous by the sound of cars apparently driven by jubilant fiends. It is all very well for the Anti-Noise League to say that, but perhaps the Anti-Noise League, and the member of your Lord-

657
ships' House who is reported as having spoken at that meeting, do not realise what the state of the law is.
Supposing an accident happens and you are charged before a court with an offence, almost the first question you will be asked, inevitably, if you have been driving a motor car, is whether you sounded your horn. Very likely your conviction or otherwise will depend upon whether the answer is in the affirmative or negative. I agree that far too much importance is attached to the sounding of a horn, and I should like to see the Ministry of Transport, if they have power to do it, which I take it they have, or will have under this clause, say that in London, for instance, after a certain time in the evening, no use will be allowed of motor car horns until next morning at daybreak. Such a regulation already is in operation in Paris. I think I am right in saying it was started as an experiment in Paris to come into operation at twelve o'clock at night until six or seven next morning, and it has been found so successful in its operation in Paris, both in the interests of public safety and actually in reducing the number of accidents, that the hour at which hooting is forbidden has been advanced to ten o'clock at night. I think we really could afford to try a limited experiment on these lines in this country.
It may be that Clause 6 will give the Minister power to do so, but there is always a great danger, when an all-powerful clause like this is passed and power is given to the Minister to say what shall or shall not be allowed, that you may have the Ministry of Transport interfering unduly with the types of horns and so on that are fitted to cars. There are great differences in the types of horns fitted to cars, as your Lordships know perfectly well. There is the saw toothed horn which, if sounded, as unfortunately it often is, in the dead of night, is liable, I imagine, to do untold harm to the ears of any unfortunate person of a nervous disposition. Its use is unnecessary at night. It is always possible to fix a horn that does not inflict the same jar on the nerves as the saw toothed horn does. There is the buzzer type that is far more universally fitted and that does not do these things. If the Minister tells us that if he gets this clause it will give him more power to conduct experiments I think the clause
658
would be worth while, but I do want some assurance that there will not be undue interference with the types of horn turned out by manufacturers and fitted to cars. Sometimes cars come from abroad owned by foreigners and any undue interference might make it difficult for them. We want, I suppose, to encourage them to come here and patronise our resorts. At any rate, I hope that what I have said will give the noble Earl the opportunity of telling us what are the intentions of the Minister.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to say one word in support of the noble Earl and to add one argument to the very cogent arguments he has advanced. There is another way in which a horn is dangerous and that is that a driver of a certain type thinks if he sounds his horn he can go over any cross road. In some residential areas there are intersecting roads and drivers of this type go at great speed at night hooting at every cross road. They think that then they are perfectly safe, and if they get into an accident they say: "Oh, well I hooted my horn." They think they are then all right. I hope that the Minister will look carefully into the results of experiments in Paris and other great cities, quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and see if we cannot have silent zones.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I can tell the noble Earl that the intention of the Minister is to proceed cautiously and experimentally and to select certain limited areas in which to proscribe the use of horns during certain hours of the night. I cannot tell him more precisely what will be the policy in future because it will depend very much upon the experiments.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Earl very much.
Clause 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 6:
" .—(1) On and after the first day or January, 1936, the owner of every motor vehicle shall cause the same to be fitted with a speedometer, and it shall not be lawful to use on any road a motor vehicle which is not so fitted, and, if a motor vehicle is used on a road in contravention of this section, any person who so uses the vehicle, or causes or permits the vehicle to be so used, shall be guilty of an offence:

659
Provided that, if while the motor vehicle is being used on a road the speedometer fails to record or accurately to record the speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling, it shall be a good defence to any proceedings for an offence under this section if it be established to the satisfaction of the court that all reasonable steps had been taken to keep the speedometer in order and to discover and repair any defects therein, and that since the defects in the speedometer had first become manifest there had been no reasonable opportunity to repair the speedometer or to replace it with another.
(2)—(a) Subject to the provisions of this section every chart upon which a record of the speed of the motor vehicle has been recorded by the speedometer shall be securely kept by the owner of the motor vehicle to which the said chart relates for a period of not less than one month from the date on which the record of the speed as aforesaid was recorded on the chart.
(b) At any time when a motor vehicle is being used on the road any police officer may demand to inspect the chart affixed to that motor vehicle.
(c) The chief officer of Police of the district in which the motor vehicle is registered may at any time inspect any chart in the possession of the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall on the application of the chief officer of Police produce the chart for his inspection or the inspection of any officer of Police nominated by the chief officer of Police.
(d) If any person refuses to allow the chart to be inspected or refuses to produce it on the application of a police officer or of the chief officer of Police in pursuance of this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)—(a) If within the period during which the chart is retained in pursuance of the provisions of this Act by the owner legal proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are instituted in connection with the driving or user of the said vehicle on the road and the owner has notice thereof, the owner shall keep and preserve any chart demanded of him in his possession at the date of demand until the final determination of the legal proceedings.
(b) In any proceedings the chart shall be prima facie evidence that the vehicle was being driven at the speed at the time thereon recorded.
(4)—(a) If any person wilfully destroys, defaces or alters the record on the chart upon which the speed of a motor vehicle has been recorded as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence, provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the provisions of the Forgery Act, 1913, in relation to the forgery or uttering of forged documents.
(b) If any person wilfully destroys or alters the true running or mechanism of a speedometer so as to cause a false record to be recorded upon the chart, or wilfully uses a speedometer which has been so altered, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable upon summary conviction upon the first offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds and upon any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds with or without imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
(6) In this section the expression ' Minister ' means the Minister of Transport; the expression ' motor vehicle ' means a motor vehicle in respect of which a maximum rate of speed is prescribed in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, except an invalid carriage, a locomotive or a motor tractor licensed as an agricultural engine or tractor, a locomotive exempted from licence duty as a road roller, and electrically propelled vehicles; the expressions ' owner,' ' road ' and ' chief officer of Police ' shall have the same meanings respectively as in the Road Traffic Act, 1930; the expression ' speedometer ' means a recording speedometer of any type approved by the Minister which causes the speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling at any time to be accurately and permanently recorded upon a chart."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment looks rather formidable, but it really is not. It is in the exact form of a Bill which I brought before your Lordships' House and which your Lordships passed a little while ago. My Amendment may be divided into two parts. There is first the principle, which I ask your Lordships to accept, and the rest of it, the bulk of it, consists purely of the machinery by which that principle may be put into operation. The principle is that on certain vehicles which I call for the sake of shortness heavier vehicles, which under the 1930 Act were made subject to a definite speed limit, there should be some method by which that speed limit can be enforced. The way I suggested previously and the way I suggest now is that there should be attached to these vehicles a speedometer which records the speed during the whole of the run of the vehicle.
I do not want to go into all the matters that I dealt with when the Bill was before your Lordships but I want to remind you of one thing. I personally tried two of these omnibuses—I will not mention the particular line—in the country. Under the Bill the speed limit is thirty miles an hour. I tested that by going on them with a stop watch and taking the time between milestones. In one case the speed was fifty-seven miles an hour and in the other fifty-eight. I have always thought a speed limit for the lighter type of vehicles unneces-

661
sary, but I do not believe anybody can think for a moment that these heavy vehicles ought to be allowed to travel at these very excessive speeds. That was the view taken when the 1930 Bill became an Act and it is the view to-day.
It was said by the noble Earl earlier in the debate, and I do not think any of your Lordships would venture to doubt it for a moment, that it is a very bad thing to enact a law that you are not going to see is kept. When the Bill was passed in this House I took no step to have it introduced in another place for the reason that it did not seem to me to be right to try to force it through until the Ministry had had full time to consider its possibilities. Two points occurred to me. The first was whether such an instrument was possible and whether it could be obtained; and the second was, if it could be obtained, could it be obtained at a reasonable price. I suggested that it could and I gave to the Ministry all the information I possessed. Since then the London General Omnibus Company and later the London Passenger Transport Board, with several other big manufacturers and users, have given every facility to the Ministry to try various types of instrument.
If my information is correct, it has been discovered that I was right when I suggested that such an instrument was not only possible but was on the market. In fact, such an instrument has been used for years on the Continent with great success, especially in France. I brought one of the French instruments over here. It is used universally on railways. There is no difficulty about it at all. Moreover, the modern type is very difficult to tamper with. I do not suppose there is any instrument that cannot be tampered with, but this is a very difficult instrument to tamper with. The price, I am advised, ought certainly not to be more than £5. Is it unreasonable to ask the owners of these heavy vehicles to pay that amount if they are to be allowed to use the roads, and allowed to use the roads for profit, which is really what they are doing?
I do not think it is necessary to call your Lordships' attention to all the details of my Amendment. I will only refer to the last paragraph which says:
" In this section … the expression ' motor vehicle ' means a motor vehicle in
662
respect of which a maximum rate of speed is prescribed in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
That is the speed limit allotted to what I call the heavy motor vehicle. Drafted in that way the clause does not apply, as the Bill did not apply, to what I call light privately-owned vehicles. I am quite aware that under the present Bill a speed limit is applied to them, but the speed limit is applied only in certain areas, and in other areas those cars are allowed to travel at any pace without any speed limit at all. A little thought will show your Lordships that although a chart of speed against time is a very valuable and certain piece of evidence as to whether or not the driver of a vehicle has broken the law when that vehicle has got a definite speed limit wherever it goes, it is of very little use if of any use at all in considering whether a car driver has broken the law when at one time or one place on his journey what the chart showed would be perfectly lawful and at another place it would be unlawful. Therefore I did not think that it was worth while or practicable to suggest that these instruments should be used for cars unless they were cars which had a definite speed limit wherever they went.
I have only one other thing to say. To begin with, as I have drafted this regulation it would come into force on January 1, 1936. I thought it was reasonable, if this was to be brought in, that both the trade who have got to consider the fitting of it and the public who have got to consider which of their cars should be fitted should have reasonable time to choose their particular type of instrument and to have it fitted, so that the whole thing might be ready to come into operation on a date not too far ahead but not unreasonably soon. Therefore I thought that a reasonable time would be somewhere in the nature of eighteen months ahead. When I first introduced my Bill I did not suggest to your Lordships' House that this was the only possible way of seeing that the law was enforced. What I did say was that it was one possible way. That was some time ago. Since then I have made inquiries of people who know a considerable amount about motoring, and I have kept my eye very carefully on those journals which deal with motoring. I have never yet heard anybody deny that if this were

663
adopted it would be a practical method of seeing that the law was being enforced, nor have I yet heard anybody suggest any other means which were practical.
For those reasons I think I have made out a prima facie case for my contention that this should be adopted. Your Lordships did adopt it last time and I ask your Lordships to adopt it again now and to incorporate it in this Bill. If you do it now, people will know that you mean it, and that when you pass this law with regard to speed you mean to have that law kept. The adoption of this method of doing it will show that at once. If the Ministry say they are not quite ready to accept this, is that really an answer? If they accept the principle—and they must know by now that they can get a suitable instrument even if they have not made up their minds as to which particular one or which particular ones to adopt—if they say now that this is what is going to happen, that in itself will make people realise that they can no longer snap their fingers at a speed limit merely because it has been put into an Act of Parliament. They will know that it has been put in as a law which Parliament means to see kept. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: We know that not long ago the noble Earl introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill to require the fitting on all motor vehicles of a recording speedometer of a type designed to cause the speed at which the vehicle was travelling at all times to be accurately and permanently recorded upon a chart. I want to say that the Minister is not unsympathetic to the proposal of the noble Earl in its wider aspect. A promise was given on the occasion when this matter was last debated in your Lordships' House that the Minister would investigate this proposal fully. That promise has been carried out, although the problem has not proved by any means an easy one. Many instruments have since been tested by the Minister's officers with varying results but no existing instrument of British manufacture has been found which would satisfy the required conditions. As the outcome of these prac-
664
tical trials, the Minister has recently placed trial orders for the construction of a number of recording instruments of different types, with a view to ascertaining whether a reliable instrument can be produced in this country on a commercial scale at a price which would make it practical politics to require its fitting to commercial vehicles generally.
I am informed that there are two instruments which have doubtless proved of value to those who have fitted them, but in essence they are both clocks, which rotate a record sheet on which are shown the periods when the engine was running and those when it was not running. Neither of them shows the speed of the vehicle. The cheapest price in the current price lists of these two instruments is £6 6s. I am told that the makers of one of these instruments informed the Minister recently that in their opinion it would take them a year or two to design an instrument which would satisfactorily record time and speed, as they intimated that in their view it could not be produced at anything like the cost of their present instruments. I am quite aware of the fact that the noble Earl has provided for this requirement to come into operation on January 1, 1936, thus allowing for the lapse of eighteen months, but I do not think that we can accept it as certain that an instrument of this kind will be found in that time which will be entirely satisfactory in all it aspects. I venture to suggest that it would be premature to insert in the Bill a provision of this kind, and that before anything is done we should at any rate make certain that we have found an instrument which can be considered satisfactory in all respects.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Of course it is very difficult indeed to answer that; but it does astonish me that the Ministry should ask two manufacturers of ordinary tachometers, who have nothing whatever to do with recording speedometers, how long it would take them to design an instrument. They are not designers of recording speedometers, but there are many people in this country who are, and I should have thought that those were the people who might have been asked, and not the others.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: They have no doubt been consulted, too.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If they had been consulted I cannot understand why the noble Earl did not tell us what their report was instead of giving us the report of people who do not manufacture them. May I make this suggestion? We know perfectly well that in this country there is no lack of engineering designing. If this clause is passed now it will become quite obvious, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree judging by what he said on an earlier matter, that in total a very considerable amount of money will have to be spent on these things—I quite agree not much by each person, but a very considerable amount in total. If it were known that instruments had got to be provided totalling that amount of money, would not that give every incentive to manufacturers in this country to start straight away and design an instrument, or to get the designs of those who already manufacture them improved in order to satisfy the Ministry, knowing that they must be taken by the public the moment this requirement comes into force? I do hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will give me something more than he has given me yet. He has merely said that he does not want me to do it now. If he could give me any indication that the moment the Ministry has made up its mind that such an instrument does exist the Government will bring in a Bill to this effect, I would not press this Amendment, but short of that I must press this Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: As I supported the noble Earl on the previous occasion when he brought this matter before the House, and as I really think that such a device if it could be found would be of very great use, I must share with him disappointment at the noble Earl's answer. I want to ask just one question: Does the whole difficulty resolve itself into the fact that there is no article of British manufacture which would meet this, case? Because the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in his speech said that in France they have got instruments of this sort.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Yes, they have. They have got two or three different types which are working perfectly, and which have been doing so for the last two or three years.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: That seems to me rather a strong argument, because if it is a matter of life saving and road safety I do not think we should at the outset refuse to adopt a device simply because it is of foreign manufacture. As the noble Earl said in his last remarks, once this was accepted as a principle which would be universally adopted, British manufacturers would soon enough invent and devise a proper instrument. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give a little hope that this may be investigated more thoroughly by the Ministry in the near future.
EARL HOWE: I would like to hear from the noble Earl whether the Police authorities of the country have stated that they have found any particular difficulty in checking the speeds of vehicles subject to the limit under the Bill. I can understand that you might be prepared to saddle the commercial vehicle industry with a huge expense if the Police had experienced any special difficulty and pressed for such a device to be fitted to heavy motor vehicles, but surely we must go slow in the financial burdens which we are invited to place on the back of the heavy motor vehicle industry. It is not in the flourishing condition it was once in. It labours to-day under very great difficulties, and I feel that we, as a House, must go very slowly, and be quite sure that any device such as this is going to be reliable if we have it fitted.
All these devices, such as that referred to by Lord Halsbury, who moved this Amendment, if they are going to be of any value must be accurate. If they are inaccurate in any way all their usefulness is destroyed. All such devices as the noble Earl referred to are cable operated, and the moment you have a cable-operated instrument the cable is probably the first point at which weakness will be developed. It is possible to ignore the lubrication of the cable. You cannot decide by Act of Parliament how often a cable shall be lubricated, and everyone knows that unless a cable is carefully and regularly lubricated it will probably break, or the instrument will become inaccurate. I hope we shall accept the advice of the Ministry of Transport and wait until we are quite certain that we have produced in this country a device such as the noble Earl anticipates. We cannot

667
say that the industry is to be fitted with a foreign device. If we did I am sure it would not meet with public approval, and I hope we shall not accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 [Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third-party risks]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out (" Where ") and insert "If, after").
Page 9, line 7, leave out (" then, if ").
Page 11, line 1, leave out (" condition ") and insert (" conditions.")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Avoidance of restrictions on scope of policies covering third-party risks]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave out (" carried in vehicle ") and insert (" that the vehicle carries ")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Then we have an Amendment that is drafting and consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, leave out (" carried in vehicle ") and insert (" that the vehicle carries ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duty to surrender certificate on cancellation of policy]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This Amendment is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, after (" insurer ") insert (" or, if it has been lost or destroyed, make a statutory declaration to that effect ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Payments and insurance in respect of emergency treatment of injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles on roads.
13.—(1) Where medical or surgical treatment or examination is immediately required as a result of bodily injury (including fatal injury) to any person caused by, or arising out of, the use of a motor vehicle on a road, and the treatment or examination so required (in this section referred to as "emergency treatment") is effected by a registered medical practitioner, the person who was using the vehicle at the time of the event out of which the bodily injury arose shall, on a claim being made in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding section, pay to the practitioner, or, where emergency treatment is effected by more than one practitioner, to the practitioner by whom it is first effected—
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "motor" ["motor vehicle on a road"]. The noble Lord said: This is rather like returning to the charge, but the position is not quite the same as when we discussed the matter before. This clause was forced upon the Ministry in another place in Committee, and although it incorporates the provisions introduced by Lord Moynihan in 1933, it is not exactly the same. In the noble Lord's Bill it was the owner of the vehicles who had to pay the 12s. 6d. Now the proposal is that the user should pay, and why it should be the user of a motor vehicle only and not of a horse-drawn or other vehicle as well I cannot fathom. We are doing our best to do away with accidents, and one of the most important needs on the road is a spirit of good will, but if by this Bill you are going to encourage a class war on the road you are not going to bring about that spirit of good will. By leaving the word "motor" in this clause you stigmatise one kind of vehicle user and you say they are, practically speaking, the only insurers on the road. On top of that you are not doing the doctors a good service, because you are depriving them of being paid automatically for one-third of the accidents on the road. This limitation of the clause to the users of motor vehicles is neither logical nor just, and I do not think it is going to be helpful. I have every sympathy with the doctors. We have got to do something to see that they get paid. I think the only way is to make every vehicle user pay something, and that will encourage them to be a little more careful.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, leave out (" motor ").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THH EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I fear I am unable to accept this Amendment. The purpose is to extend the principle of the payment of 12s. 6d. to the doctor for emergency treatment to cases in which vehicles other than motor vehicles are involved. Part II, both of the principal Act and of the present Bill, are concerned primarily with the requirement of insurance of users of motor vehicles. Even if the present Amendment were carried there would be nothing in the clause; or in the principal Act requiring the user of a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, to insure against the contingency contemplated in the section.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, in subsection (1), after "road," to insert, "or in a place to which the public has a right of access." The noble Lord said: This Amendment enlarges the area in which the accident might take place to include parking places, commons, etc. The Select Committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, last year favoured this addition in their Report, and, furthermore, the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933, Clause 33, reads:
"on a road or in a place to which the public have a right of access."
Consequently, if the Minister accepts this Amendment, the wording will be similar in this Road Traffic Bill to that in the Road and Rail Traffic Bill of 1933. The form of wording proposed has already passed your Lordships' House two or three times and I hope the Minister will accept it and thus let doctors and hospitals be paid in a larger number of cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, after (" road ") insert (" or in a place to which the public has a right of access ").—(Lord Luke).
EARL HOWE: Could anything better illustrate the intolerable injustice which it is proposed to perpetrate under this Bill than to say that because a motorist has left his car at a parking place and, say, an errand boy on a bicycle runs into it, the motorist is to pay a doctor's fee of 12s. 6d.? I have every sympathy with the doctors, but really why should we place this burden on the motoring
670
community? Have the Government got any information with regard to what is likely to be the effect on insurance premiums? I think that we are in some grave danger of putting up premiums, especially on the lighter classes of vehicles which in this country are so numerous, beyond the point where the man with only a very small margin on which to run his car can afford to pay. I hope the Government will not agree to this Amendment, which, I understand, is merely to put back words which were not found acceptable in another place.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I myself rather dislike the whole of this clause, not that I have not the greatest sympathy with doctors, but I dislike a whole class of people being penalised by Act of Parliament. It seems to me that if this Amendment is accepted there will only be one place where motorists will not be liable, and that is in their chariots on their way to heaven.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment. The word "road" is defined in Section 121 (1) of the principal Act as "any highway and any other road to which the public has access." The words "or in a place to which the public has a right of access" were in this clause as read a first time in another place, but an Amendment to leave the words out was carried without a Division on a reference being given to the definition in the principal Act. The main objection to the acceptance of the Amendment is that there is no statutory requirement to ensure the user of a motor vehicle otherwise than in respect of use on roads. The noble Lord has, I think, obtained practically everything that he wanted, and, in view of the fact that, as I imagine, a very small number of accidents occur in the places which the noble Lord has in mind, I hope that he will not press the Amendment.
LORD LUKE: With regard to what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this matter, I am very much surprised that the extreme supporters of motorists should so continually resist Amendments from those who wish to obtain for the hospitals merely payment for the accidents brought to them from the roads. Hospitals were built, not for motorists but for the sick poor in their neighbourhoods, and continually we have had, by

671
little driblets of legislation, to obtain payments for the hospitals for these cases. The total cost to hospitals is about £230,000 per annum. That, spread over two million or more motorists, is not more than half-a-crown for each—we have had that figure mentioned on several occasions—and yet it is suggested that there will be an enormous increase in motoring costs. There would not be an increase, unless the insurance companies were over-charging, of more than half-a-crown for each motorist. I am sorry the Government cannot accept this Amendment, because it is just on all-fours with the 1933 Act, and it will mean that in one Act there will be rather a different meaning to these words referring to a road. If I withdraw the Amendment I should like to bring it up on Report after I have considered the matter with those whom I represent, belonging to the hospitals. May I ask the Ministry to consider it?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Lord withdraw?
LORD LUKE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Foot-passenger crossings.
(4) Where it appears to the council of a borough or of an urban district or of a county that crossings ought to be established in the borough, or in the urban district, or in a rural district in the county, as the case may be, the council may, after consultation with the chief officer of Police and after giving public notice that they propose so to do, submit to the Minister a scheme specifying either the positions of the proposed crossings, or the lengths of road, or the areas, in which they are to be established and the number proposed for any length of road or area, and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, approve the scheme with or without modification.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The first two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 2, leave out (" or ") in both places where that word occurs and insert (" and ")
Page 16, line 3, leave out (" or ") and insert (" and ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words down to and including "specifying" and insert:
" (4) Within such period after the commencement of this section as the Minister may by order determine, the council of every borough, urban district and county shall, after consultation with the chief officer of Police and after giving public notice that they propose so to do, submit to the Minister either a scheme containing proposals for the establishment of crossings in the borough, or in the urban district, or in the rural districts in the county, as the case may be, or if it appears to them that the establishment of crossings in the borough, or in the urban district, or in any rural district in the county, as the case may be, is unnecessary, a statement of the reasons why they consider the establishment of crossings therein to be unnecessary, and in any case in which such a statement as aforesaid has been submitted the Minister may, if it appears to him that crossings ought to be established in the borough or district to which the statement relates and after giving to the council by whom the statement was submitted an opportunity of making representations, require the council to submit a scheme in relation thereto.
(5) A scheme submitted under the last foregoing subsection shall specify."
The noble Earl said: The clause as printed in the Bill leaves the initiative in the matter of pedestrian crossings solely with the local authority. The present Amendment provides for the possible case in which a local authority fails to take any action for the establishment of crossings in its area. In such an event the local authority is required to inform the Minister of their reasons for taking no action and the Minister, if he thinks fit, may compel the council to submit a scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 5, leave out from the beginning of the line to (" either ") in line 12 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
EAHL HOWE EAHL HOWE moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
Pedestrians to observe traffic light signals.
".—(1) Where at any place in a road a traffic sign controlled by light signals is in operation for regulating the movement of traffic, and the light signals indicate the times when vehicles shall stop and may proceed no person shall cross the carriageway on foot or stand thereon at such time as the light signals indicate that vehicles may proceed thereon.
(2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section he shall in respect of each offence be liable on conviction to a finis not exceeding five pounds."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to ensure that the pedestrian observes traffic light signals in common with all other road users. If we really want to ensure the safety of the roads there can be no case for allowing one section of road users absolutely to defy all the signals under which our traffic uses the roads. I may be told by the Ministry of Transport that possibly it already will have the power under the Bill to compel road users to obey traffic signals, and, if it has, then I shall be quite satisfied, but at present, while it is an offence for a driver to ignore a traffic signal, it is no offence for a pedestrian to do so. The other day the Minister of Transport put a sort of declaration in the Press of the country on the subject of what he called "mass murder" on the roads, and he went on to say that his plans would go astray unless he were assured of the co-operation of all road users. I am not sure whether he will get that co-operation: I hope he will, but at present the pedestrian shows little sign of co-operation with other road users.
Only to-day I was coming up from the coast to London, and I happened to be motoring through Norwood, and was approaching some pedestrian control with traffic light signals, and the light signals were showing green—there was no pedestrian seeking to cross the road; but a little further on an elderly gentleman (not very old) and an eldery lady launched off from the pavement and got about five or six yards into the middle of the road, and then suddenly became aware that it was seething with traffic coming from all directions. They clutched each other's hands, one tried to go one way and the other the other, and of course got more frightened still. I was terrified that one would let go, in which case the other would have run straight into the approaching traffic. Finally they both collapsed more or less in a heap close to the pavement while all the traffic stood still. It is that sort of thing we must try and get over. This happened within twenty yards—the length of a cricket pitch—of a pedestrian control. They could have gone up and pressed the button and the traffic would have stopped.
The pedestrian must be made to observe traffic light signals in accordance with all other forms of traffic. Until that happens we will get further casualties on the road. We must allow the pedestrian to accommodate himself to the necessary changes, but I think the Minister ought to be able to give us an assurance that within a certain specified time pedestrians will be required to observe these signals. I was recently in Berlin and there I happened to notice policemen very busy with notebooks interviewing people at the corner of the street. I enquired and was told they were busily collecting fines on the spot from pedestrians who had not observed traffic light signals. I was told later on that some 1,300 pedestrians were had up and duly fined by policemen in one day in that City alone. They can do these things abroad, and I cannot see why we cannot do them here in the interests of public safety. We do not want to take a leaf out of the book of any particular country in these matters, but I feel that the principle is important. Do let us get it accepted that the pedestrian is a form of traffic and must accept the rules and regulations laid down in the interests of public safety along with other forms of traffic.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid this problem is not solved quite so easily as the noble Earl suggests. At the normal cross road junction, if green lights allow traffic to proceed north to south and south to north, they must also allow traffic on the north to south road to turn right or left (that is, east or west). If therefore the Amendment were accepted as it stands, pedestrians would never be able to cross at all. The fact that a green light may be showing does not necessarily mean that vehicles are proceeding in the permitted direction (for example, they may be turning right or left), or there may, in the case of a fixed time cycle light signal, be no approaching traffic at all; and this Amendment would prohibit foot passengers crossing at such a time. Traffic lights are primarily designed so as to be seen by drivers and are therefore not always sited so as to be visible to pedestrians. Even where they are so visible pedestrians should (as recommended by the Departmental Committee) watch the

675
traffic itself and not rely solely upon the light signals. The proposals contained in the Amendment, if they could be carried out, would result in such a demoralisation of traffic as to make it impossible either for vehicular or pedestrian traffic to proceed.
The real answer to the noble Earl's suggestion is the experiments being made now by the Minister with regard to these pedestrian crossings. They are admittedly experimental, but I gave an assurance to your Lordships not long ago on the Second Reading of this Bill that this matter was being actively pursued. I dare say the noble Earl will be glad to see that under subsections (7) and (8) power is taken to impose a fine on pedestrians who do not use the crossings when they ought to.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I fully anticipated I should be told my proposal was not really entirely suitable. Still I think the matter does require further consideration of the Government, if not now, then in the future, when the education of the public has gone a little further in these matters. All I wanted to do was to establish a principle.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Provisions as to reflectors on bicycles, etc.]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 29, leave out (" on summary conviction ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Restriction on carriage of persons on bicycles.
17.—(1) It shall not be lawful for more than one person to be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.
(2) If any person is carried on such a bicycle in contravention of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, each of the persons carried shall be liable in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(3) In this section references to a person carried on a bicycle shall include references to a person riding the bicycle.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or adapted." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to ascertain whether the words "or adapted" mean that the fixed pillion seat is to be permitted either in front of the handle bars or behind the saddle, or both. It seems to me that in front of the handle bars is an exceedingly dangerous position, and I should like to have some explanation of what the words mean.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, leave out (" or adapted ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am not very clear myself as to what actually can be done, but the point is there are in use adequate and satisfactory baby baskets which can be safely affixed to pedal cycles, and there would be strong and reasonable opposition on the part of cycling organisations if parents were forbidden to take their infants on their saddles in this manner. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 17, but after what the noble Earl has said about baby baskets being allowed, and that there will be nothing illegal in using them, that takes away one point I had in mind. There is another point. He did not say anything about the contrivance by which mothers in the country often take their children to school by cycle. There is a sort of arm like a chair on which the child sits. Will this contrivance count as being adapted and will it be allowed? This clause rather trespasses on the liberty of the individual. Soon, nobody will be able to do anything at all without the sanction of the Minister of Transport or the Minister of something else. I have not seen any statistics at all which would justify the imposition of this clause. If the noble Earl has anything to prove that there have been many accidents on account of using bicycles for such purposes I hope he will give us them.
There is an old song about a "Bicycle made for two," which I presume will not apply in this case even although two people ride on it. If we are going to allow baby baskets and to allow children to be carried behind cycles to school, there is not so much objection to the

677
clause, but it ought to be clear that this is so. Would such a fixture as I have described be regarded as adapted or not? If it is adapted and the adaptation is not on the bicycle but has been removed the bicycle may not be considered in order. It is only when the cycle is used with the basket that it is in order. I am not quite clear about the clause, and I am not sure that the clause itself is clear on the point I have mentioned. I hope the noble Earl will look at the matter carefully before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think the noble Marquess has unreasonable apprehensions in regard to this matter. I understand that the Cyclists Touring Club, when the Minister consulted them on the matter, agreed that the practice of carrying passengers on handlebars or on the framework of the cycle was dangerous, and they raised no objection to the clause provided that it was clear, as the clause in its present form is, that it would not be an offence to carry a child on a properly constructed seat or a baby in a baby basket. I hope that will satisfy the noble Marquess.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask my noble friend if he would look carefully at the third subsection? It seems to me to be very obscure, and I think it will give trouble as it is drafted. I wonder if the noble Earl would consult his advisers in regard to that?
THE EARL OP PLYMOUTH: I will look into it.
Clause 17 agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask at this stage what the Minister's intentions are with regard to the further discussion on this Bill? It is rather late now, and I do not think we could complete the Committee stage this evening without sitting after dinner. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say what he desires.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): It is eminently reasonable that we should not go on too late, but it is important to get as far as we can. I am afraid we have not progressed quite as fast as we had rather hoped might be the case. That is unavoidable, and is certainly nobody's fault. My idea was to go on until we
678
got to something which was really troublesome. I had hoped that we might have got perhaps to the end of Clause 21. I see that is about four or five more Amendments ahead, but two of them are Government Amendments, which do not take very long generally to deal with. I thought that probably that would not take more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. If we found there was an Amendment which raised really serious discussion, and those responsible for the Amendment really pressed to have it postponed, I should be content to do that. I am anxious to go as far as we can because it is essential we should get the Committee stage this week in order that we may get the Report and Third Reading next week and the Amendments considered in another place in time to get the Royal Assent before the adjournment, which is now only about a fortnight off. Therefore we shall have, I am afraid, to go on with the Committee stage on Thursday, and it may be necessary to sit late on that day.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Not to-morrow?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think not to-morrow, because it would come after Motions, and the two Motions we have on the Paper will, I think, give rise to rather a long debate. We have agreed to sit early to-morrow in order to take the housing discussion, and I am afraid it would be a little late before we could embark on this Bill. I was anxious not to move specially to give precedence to this Bill. On Thursday Bills take precedence of Motions and, therefore, we might hope to get to work on this Bill pretty early and, if necessary, sit late to discuss the Motion which is down for that day. I have written to the noble Lord who has a Motion on the Paper for Thursday and asked him what his wishes are in the matter. He has not had time to receive, much less to answer, my letter yet.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Can my noble friend tell me when he proposes to take the Report stage, or is it too early to state that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I expect on Tuesday of next week. That would give us Wednesday in case there are any alterations, and Thursday for the Third Reading. That is only a provisional date, and depends upon whether it meets the convenience of the House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Perhaps the Leader of the House would consider continuing this Bill to-morrow. There is an important Motion on housing and if we start at three o'clock we might find time later for this Bill. There is another Motion down for to-morrow, but I do not think it will take very long. As the sitting starts at three o'clock to-morrow it might be possible to continue the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow.
EARL HOWE: I do not think there will be much discussion on the later clauses, and it would certainly be move to my personal convenience if we continued the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In view of what my noble friends have said I am very willing to put the Bill down to-morrow. I do not think it will be convenient to sit late to-morrow. We might put the Committee stage down and see how long the housing discussion takes. If that discussion took some time it would be necessary that the Committee stage of this Bill should go over till Thursday.
Clause 18 agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause
Pedal cycles to be registered.
" .—(1) A person shall not ride a bicycle or tricycle not propelled by mechanical power unless there is affixed to the vehicle in a conspicuous position a register plate issued by the local authority and bearing a number indicating that the vehicle is registered for the purposes of identification.
(2) The Minister may make regulations providing for the keeping of a register of vehicles for the purpose of this section and prescribing the particulars to be furnished by an applicant for registration and providing for a renewal of registration from time to time.
(3) If any person rides a bicycle without the same being registered under this section he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause which I have put down is to provide a system of registration for pedal cycles and tricycles so that they may be identified and traced in the same way as you can identify and trace a motor car. Probably most of your Lordships have seen as you went along the roads a
680
pedal cycle suddenly shoot out in such a way as to cause a motor car to skid and possibly cause the motor car to run into another motor car. The cyclist puts down his head and goes on at full speed and there is no possibility of getting hold of the man who has really been responsible for the accident. Under this clause you will be able at least to read his number plate as he speeds away. There is an obvious precedent for this. There is no provision in the clause for the payment of a registration fee, and the local authority would have no funds available for keeping up the register That objection could be met in two ways, either by requiring the cyclist to pay a small registration fee when he first registered—I should think 1s. or 2s. 6d. would cover the cost—or, alternatively, by having a grant made to the local authorities from the Road Fund for the purpose. I do not know what the Government will think of these proposals, but I hope they will consider them seriously. They will come sooner or later, and as they will come later we may just as well have them now and then later on we shall be able to pat ourselves on the back and say what clever fellows we were.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I do not understand why the noble Lord thinks this is bound to come in time. I am afraid I did not hear him give any particular reason why this registration of cyclists should be instituted. Speaking for myself, I can see no real grounds for instituting the compulsory registration of pedal cycles and tricycles. It is taken for granted that any proposal of this kind would meet with the strongest opposition from millions of bicycle and tricycle riders. In addition to that I think it would entail an enormous amount of work and I, personally, can see no valid reason for instituting such registration. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl, Lord Powis, has handed in a manuscript Amendment to be moved after Clause 18.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I beg to move that the following new clause be inserted after Clause 18:

681
" In the case of the provision of any new main road or the widening of any existing main road for the purpose of facilitating motor traffic, regard shall be had to the desirability of providing where possible separate bridle paths or adequate grass verges for the use of persons riding or leading horses."
I must apologise to the noble Earl for having given him such short notice of this Amendment. I regret that there has not been an opportunity for him to discuss it with the Minister of Transport, but I think it is a matter which deserves consideration by your Lordships. In old days roads were made for carrying traffic and also for horses, but by modern traffic the unfortunate horse owner has been driven off the road. It seems to me only fair that we should endeavour to make some provision for the horse owner, and it struck me that the best way of doing that would be to make a grass verge or a bridle path by the side of a new road for the use of persons riding or leading horses. It would only mean purchasing a few more feet in width when a new road is being made.
I think I have made my Amendment as reasonable as possible. The noble Earl will observe that I have put in the words "providing where possible." I quite understand that where ribbon development has taken place it is impossible to make a bridle path or an adequate grass verge between the motor road and the houses which have been built alongside it. Many of the roads are widened in such a way that there is nothing left but the road and the hedge. In fact in many cases the hedge is dying for want of roots because the bank with the roots in it has been cut away. One noble Lord spoke about having been driven into the ditch, but unfortunately there is not always a ditch to be driven into. I beg to move this Amendment and I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to discuss this question with the Minister of Transport.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Powis.)
LOED DANESFORT: I should like to support my noble friend. When one knows the trouble into which a horse driver may get along a slippery road, whether leading another horse or otherwise, one must have great sympathy with this Amendment. Added to that
682
there is the danger of being run into by some motor vehicle going along at a very fast pace. Something ought to be done for the protection of people who have as much right on the roads as motorists. If the Minister in charge of the Bill is not able at short notice to deal with this matter I hope that between now and the Report stage he will give full consideration to the matter. If he; could then produce a clause which would meet the views of my noble friend who moved this Amendment he would give great satisfaction to horse owners who, as I have said, are fully entitled to use the roads.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am not able to accept this Amendment, but I can say that we do encourage local authorities to provide grass verges wherever possible for persons leading or riding horses. I cannot go further than that now, but if the noble Earl wishes to bring up the matter again on Report I will certainly examine the position and I may then be able to give him a more definite answer.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I thank the noble Earl very much for his reply. I will certainly bring up the matter again and I should like to talk it over with him if he will give me an opportunity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Advances from road fund for weighing machines.
20. Subsection (3) of Section fifty-seven of the principal Act (which authorises the making of advances out of the Road Fund towards the expenses incurred by any highway authority in the erection of weighbridges or other machines for weighing vehicles) shall have effect as if after the word "erection" there had been inserted the words "provision, maintenance, or operation."
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 20. The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment inasmuch as it is proposed to put the substance of the clause into the Third Schedule by the Amendment to that Schedule standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 20.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 21:
Power of county councils to light roads.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, all expenses incurred by the council of a county under this section shall be expenses for general county purposes.
Provided that if a road lighting authority provide lighting for the county roads within their area and have not failed in any year to comply with a notice given under the last foregoing subsection the council of the county shall pay to the road lighting authority, if that authority so request, the amount raised by the council of the county in that area in respect of expenses incurred by them under this section in that year.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to omit the proviso in subsection (5) and insert:
" Provided that a road lighting authority who have in any year ending on the thirty-first day of March provided lighting for the county roads in their area shall, if they so request, be entitled to receive from the council of the county the amount raised by that council in that area in respect of expenses incurred by them under this section in that year, unless the council of the county have in that year exercised the power conferred on them by this section in respect of a road, or part of a road, in that area."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 3 on page 20 and insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Radius of traffic roundabouts.
" (1) For the purposes of securing the construction of suitable roundabouts at cross roads the Minister shall prescribe minimum requirements for the dimensions and radius to be provided by the highway authority in laying out the works and no highway authority shall be entitled to any Road Fund grant in respect of any such work unless the said minimum dimensions are provided.
(2) In any such case as aforesaid where the prescribed minimum requirements cannot be provided and where it is necessary to make provision for securing the safety of cross traffic the cross roads shall be equipped with traffic light signals."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try to ensure, that roundabouts are so laid down that they
684
can be used without risk of disaster. On the arterial roads and by-pass roads on the outskirts of London, for instance, a large number of roundabout systems have been established. Some of them are totally unsuited for the traffic ordinarily to be expected to use the road. I know several which it is quite impossible for lorries and trailers to get round without going off the road or alternatively risking capsize by going over the kerb of the roundabout. It is merely a question of planning. In one or two cases local authorities have constructed roundabouts not so much with the idea of facilitating the flow of traffic or providing for the safety of traffic as with the object of putting some automatic check on the speed of the faster vehicles. There have been one or two laid down in arterial roads where fast vehicles have charged straight across because they were unable to stop. In some places it has been found necessary to put up notices warning drivers that they are approaching a roundabout. Some of these roundabouts are really highly dangerous. I do not suppose that the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment, but I put it forward in the hope that he will be able to give some assurance that the planning of roundabout systems will be kept under review and that the Minister will make every effort to avoid roundabout systems being put down not to help the safe flow of traffic but to control speed.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have a certain sympathy with the noble Earl in the object which he has in view, but I do not think this is a matter proper for statutory requirements. The dimensions and radii of roundabouts are matters which engage the closest attention of the Minister and his technical advisers and it is not the practice of the Minister to give grants out of the Road Fund if roundabouts fail to comply with the technical requirements of the Ministry. I do not think this is a matter which lends itself to be dealt with by statutory requirements and I think it would be a pity to do anything which would stereotype the dimensions of roundabouts. I can, however, assure the noble Earl that this is a matter which is receiving the

685
careful attention of the Ministry the whole time and therefore I beg that he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Proceedings in Committee adjourned.

COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEK) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOKE-ON-TRENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEY VALLEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WYCOMBE AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CHAILEY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH MIDDLESEX AND RICH- MOND JOINT HOSPITAL DIS- TRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
VISOOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the Amendment to this Bill made in another place is of a purely clerical nature. In order to save printing and expense I propose to ask your Lordships to consider it now. The Amendment merely substitutes the number 6 for the number 5. I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I now beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to:
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Gage.)

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, there are two Commons Amendments upon this Bill and they are perfectly minor ones. The first is in subsection (3) of Clause 34, and gives a more precise definition of a bath. The second is to omit subsection (2) of Clause 78, and is of a purely drafting nature. I beg to move that these Amendments be considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the first Amendment to Clause 34, subsection (3), be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move that the second Amendment, to omit subsection (2) of Clause 78, be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Gage.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would like to mention that I have ascertained that quite a considerable number of your Lordships desire to debate the Housing Motion to-morrow. I have therefore communicated with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and with other noble Lords, and I do not propose to put down the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill again until Thursday. I am satisfied that it would be quite useless to do so. I think that I shall have to ask your Lordships to be good enough to meet at three o'clock on Thursday. I have ascertained from the judicial authorities that that is quite convenient for their labours.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.