Lords Sitting of 24 July 1934

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION SUTTON ROAD BRIDGE) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (PENICUIK WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order reported on the 28th of June last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Select Committee on the 28th of June last, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CLACTON-ON-SEA AND SAINT MAWES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GAME BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, the objects of the present Bill are sufficiently defined in the title—"an Act to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to game." These Game Laws have been enacted piecemeal until to-day they are to be found in Statutes some of which arts over one hundred and most of which over seventy years old, and some of them under headings so various as Customs and Inland Revenue Act, Wild Birds Protection Act, and the Protection of Animals Act. To-day, if you wish to discover the law relating to game, you have to turn backwards and forwards from section to section of a number of different Acts, and when this fails you must look at the Law Reports in which certain cases decided that the Acts meant something that they certainly do not say.
To give you one example of the doubts and difficulties with which the subject is fraught, I am informed on legal authority that it was not until the latest edition of Halsbury's Laws of England,
966
which is actually to be published in the present year, that it was discovered by the lawyers themselves that an Act passed as long ago as 1848—namely, the Hares Act—did not make the shooting of game by night illegal, while it took thirty years for the Courts to decide that the Ground Game Act of 1880, although it said that no person could shoot hares or rabbits by night, meant that although a non-occupying shooting tenant could shoot them by night he could not do so if he happened to live on the land over which he possessed the shooting rights. Accordingly the present Bill, which is the result of the deliberations of a committee of legal and sporting experts, containing several members of this House, who have been at work on the subject for more than two years, represents an attempt to produce order from chaos and to state in a readily accessible form what the law relating to game in this country really is.
This brings me to the second object referred to in the short title—namely, "to amend." It requires no elaboration to make it easily understood that when the law is derived from so many and such different Statutes discrepancies have crept in and obsolete measures have been perpetuated. I want to give a few examples of some of the absurdities which are the result of historical accidents. For instance, because the offence of night poaching was dealt with by an Act of 1828 and the offence of day poaching by an Act of 1831, a gamekeeper appointed by a non-occupying shooting tenant cannot arrest a poacher by night, though he can do so by day. It is thus possible to have the spectacle of a gamekeeper anxiously awaiting the hour before sunrise so that he may arrest a poacher who is stealing his master's game. If he does so he gains another advantage, for a day poacher upon conviction forfeits his licence to kill game or carry a gun, whereas a night poacher, although a more serious offender, does not. Rights are given to gamekeepers by an Act of 1831 and to policemen by an Act of 1862. The gamekeepers can arrest but cannot search day poachers when they are on private land, while policemen cannot arrest but can search day poachers when they are on the highway. The gamekeeper can ask for the poacher's name and address while the policeman cannot.
Other absurdities have arisen owing to the growth of progress. Thus, when the

967
Game Act of 1831 was passed there were stage-coaches, but there was no cold storage. Accordingly, although there are elaborate provisions to ensure that guards and drivers of stage-coaches shall not be entitled to become game dealers, no provision exists for the legalisation of keeping birds in cold storage for consumption in the close season. Take another point: If one were asked to define the word "game" to-day one would be at a complete loss. Snipe and woodcock are game for the purposes of the Poaching Prevention Act and for the purposes of the Revenue law, but not game for the purposes of the Game Act. Rabbits are game only for the purposes of the Poaching Prevention Act and under the name of conies for the Revenue law.
From that muddle as to the definition of game there arise a great many anomalies. Suppose an intruder comes on to land to shoot snipe or woodcock, he cannot be arrested or given into custody by the owner or occupier of the land or his servant. He probably cannot even be turned off the land by the non-occupying shooting tenant or by his gamekeeper; but if, after poaching for snipe or woodcock, he ventures on to the highway a policeman, but no one else, may search him but may not arrest him, may confiscate his poached birds and his gun but may not demand his name and address. Take, again, rabbits. Gamekeepers can arrest poachers whilst stealing rabbits but cannot confiscate the rabbits. Policemen, when the poacher comes on to the highway, can confiscate the rabbits but cannot arrest the poacher. If the poacher is arrested by the gamekeeper the fine is £2 and if he is summoned by the policeman the fine is £5. Finally, take the case of the contentious policeman who sees a poacher actually poaching game within a yard of the highway. He can do one of two things; either he can go and find the owner of the shooting rights and get his permission to enter the land and arrest the poacher, by which time the poacher would probably have got away, or he can wait patiently until the poacher comes on to the highway, in which case the poacher is likely to take another way home.
These examples are probably sufficient to show the urgent need for some measure of amendment, though it is important
968
to bear in mind that not only are important rights of property affected, but also the incidence of fines and imprisonment depend upon technical absurdities of this kind. There is another strong reason for revision. In the days when the Game Laws were passed the game was, as a rule, shot by the great landlords upon their own land. The syndicate sportsman was practically unknown. To-day shooting has become a much more democratic sport. The country solicitor, the estate agent and the small business man from the town, have taken the place of the great landlords and they join syndicates for shooting other people's land, bringing a new source of income from the towns to the countryside. Rough shoots over farms are taken by all kinds and descriptions of people. I am informed that they are taken by unemployed miners in Wales and by clerks in City offices. Each of these adds something to the farmer's income, while the tremendous growth of the practice of shooting driven birds has caused the expenditure by shooting men and the receipt by a variety of members of the rural population of considerable sums for beaters' pay.
Just as the Game Laws failed to protect the new sportsmen they may also fail to punish the new poacher. Of recent years there has arisen a very real menace to the game population of the country. I suppose there is a certain amount of secret sympathy from a good many people for the bona fide poacher, the poor man who, in order to give his family supper, kills a few rabbits, but no one will sympathise at all with the man who can afford an expensive motor car and gun, and who goes out from the town to fill his bag at someone else's expense. The ordinary old-fashioned poacher may have been a naturalist and a sportsman—I dare say he very often was—but his modern counterpart is really a mean and rather despicable thief. This is a form of offence which is increasing at an alarming rate and under the present law the difficulties of catching offenders who work in gangs large enough to overcome the local keepers are well nigh insuperable.
Before embarking on an account of what the Bill is intended to do I should like to make clear what it is not intended to do. In the first place, there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the revenue

969
from gaming licences and so on. As a consequence of its passing into law not a single penny less will be taken by the revenue, nor will the procedure as to gaining licences be changed in any way. In the second place there are various provisions as to game which have been considered to be framed more for the purpose of protecting the farmer than for the benefit of the sportsman. The Ground Game Acts are left unaltered by this Bill altogether. A noble Lord, a. member of this House, who says he is interested in the Bill, has sent me various conundrums. I will only give one of them. It is: Whose property is a hare caught in a lawn tennis net on tae village recreation ground? This Bill does not intend to deal with questions like that. The Bill does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland has been more enterprising than the Parliament in England and has already brought its Game Laws up to date. As your Lordships will see, the present Bill has made use of the experience of Northern Ireland and there have been inserted in it one or two provisions which are now law in that country. In Scotland, on the other hand, the Game Laws are different from those in England and it is impossible to incorporate provisions for both countries in the same Act. Accordingly, the question of the Scottish Game Laws has been considered outside the scope of this Bill and will require a special Bill of its own. Certainly I should not be responsible for introducing any such Bill myself.
So much for what the Bill does not do. Now, as to what it does. In the main this can be most conveniently dealt with by passing quickly through the various parts of the Bill itself, but it may be useful to start with an explanation of the chief amendments which are affected. The first purpose of the Bill is to provide a uniform definition of "game" which, under the Bill, will include hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse, black game (which are already treated as game in all present enactments) and ptarmigan, capercailzie, woodcock, snipe and wild duck, of which woodcock and snipe are already game for the purposes of revenue licences and the Poaching Prevention Act, while the others mentioned are not at present game at all. The second pur-
970
pose of the Bill, which is a corollary of the first, is to remove woodcock, snipe and wild duck from the scope of the Wild Birds Protection Acts and to bring them under the uniform protection of the Game Laws. The protection afforded to these birds under the present Bill is in no way less than that which they at present enjoy, but such protection is more uniform. At present under the Wild Birds Protection Act each county council makes its own close time for killing these birds. Thus, it is possible to shoot woodcock in West Suffolk in the month of February while, if the same bird crosses the boundary into Norfolk, to kill it then becomes a crime.
To give one more example of the same sort of anomaly, there is a landowner who has land that falls within no less than four adjacent county divisions—namely, Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. If he shoots wild duck on March 1 it is illegal in Lincolnshire but nowhere else. If he shoots it on March 2 it is illegal in Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire but legal in the Soke of Peterborough. If he shoots it on August 15 it is illegal everywhere but in Northamptonshire, while on August 16 it becomes legal in Lincolnshire as well. Not until September 1 is it legal on the whole of his property. Surely that must show the absurdity of the present state of things.
I want to say a special word about wild duck being brought within the protection of the Game Laws. At the present day wildfowling on the tidal flats and estuaries is the livelihood of many wild-fowlers, and there and elsewhere it is the sport of a very large number of poor men. To shoot wild duck no game licence is at present needed and care has been taken throughout the present Bill to enact no measure which will restrict or add to the cost of the poor man's sport. For this reason, at the instance of the Wild-fowlers' Association, who have cooperated in the making of this Bill and approve of its provisions, wild duck, although given the protection of the Bill, are not subject to a close time on Sundays, nor is there any necessity in the Bill for obtaining a game licence for shooting these birds.
The third main amendment is to produce uniformity of the law relating to

971
poaching To-day the historical anomalies as to right of arrest, which were always accidental rather than intentional, have taken on a new seriousness when faced with the menace of a poaching gang with a high-powered car. At present these anomalies exist both as to the powers of arrest of gamekeepers, which I have already mentioned, and the powers of arrest of police constables, who at present, if they find a poacher actually at work in the day time, cannot safely enter upon the land and apprehend him but must go and obtain permission from the shooting tenant, or must wait until the poacher returns to a public highway, which the poacher probably takes very good care not to do.
The fourth main amendment is to apply to England a provision which has been already successfully applied in Northern Ireland—namely, to require dealers in game to keep a register of their purchases. This measure, which has caused no difficulty to retailers in Ireland, where it is in fact a much more onerous measure since they are there required to keep a register also of sales—this will not be required by the present Bill—has been found necessary owing to the growth of the offence of poaching by motor car. Ninety-nine per cent. of the game dealers of this country are scrupulously honest men and it is believed that there will be no opposition from that quarter. But it is the odd one per cent, which has made possible the wholesale slaughter of game by organised gangs of motor poachers, and this weakness in the present law it is one of the objects of this Bill to cure.
As to the provisions of the Bill itself, the Bill repeals the Acts of Parliament set out in the Second Schedule. Part I deals with close days and seasons and the chief effect of this Part of the Bill is to take snipe, woodcock and wild duck out of the scope of the Wild Birds Protection Act, under which Act the close season for these birds varies from county to county, and to place them all under the protection of the Game Laws with the close seasons that are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill which also makes an alteration as to the close times for game. The close times are lessened in the case of grouse, because experience has shown that it would be to the advantage of the grouse stock for keepers to have this additional time in order to kill off cock grouse. In other cases the
972
close season has been extended where any alteration has been made, so that these birds will enjoy a longer time of preservation under this Bill than they do under the present laws. The eggs of the birds I have mentioned also cease to be protected by the Wild Birds Protection Act, but receive instead the protection granted under the poaching section of this Bill. The second Amendment contained in this Part of the Bill is to impose a penalty on unsuccessful poachers and persons attempting to kill game during the close season. Under the present law a person cannot be proceeded against for killing game in the close season unless he can be proved actually to have killed. It is no offence to shoot at a bird and miss it.
Part II of the Bill deals with the right to kill game. The present law is reproduced with an alteration in the order of the sections but with no other alteration; the right to kill game being dependent on the possession of sporting rights and of a game licence, which, however, is not required for the birds which have been added to the definition of game by the present Bill, so that wild-fowlers and others will not suffer in this respect. Part III deals with gamekeepers and reproduces the present law in its entirety. Part IV deals with game dealers and reproduces the whole of the present law. It contains, however, one major and one minor amendment. The major amendment is a provision for the keeping by a dealer in game of a register of all his purchases, which shall be open to inspection by the police. This measure has been taken from the Game Preservation Act of Northern Ireland where it has been found to work successfully and to be of use in the prevention of poaching. Unlike the Irish measure, however, this Bill does not make it necessary for a game dealer to keep a register of sales. The minor amendment provides that birds kept in cold storage and killed during the lawful season may be sold during the close season.
Part V deals with poaching. This Part of the Bill is designed to produce uniformity in the law relating to the prevention of poaching and kindred offences. As has been already mentioned, woodcock, snipe and wild duck have been added to the number of birds enjoying

973
the protection of the Game Laws, inducting that portion of them which deals with poaching;, but this is not a very serious alteration as it is already possible for a police constable to stop and arrest a person who is in unlawful possession of snipe or woodcock, and for such person to be convicted. Thus, under the present state of the law a policeman can, while a gamekeeper cannot, arrest a poacher for poaching woodcock or snipe. Under the Bill this anomaly will be done away with. The stealing of game eggs, which at present for no logical reason is subject only to a special minor penalty under a section of its own, is, under this Bill, grouped with ordinary poaching of game and is subject to the same penalties. At present the position is that a person stealing game eggs, although guilty of an offence, cannot be arrested by a gamekeeper, but if he returns to the highway, after stealing the eggs, he may be searched by a police constable.
The right of arrest of night poachers has now been extended to the servants or gamekeepers of shooting tenants. This is an important and necessary amendment, to the need for which many country benches have drawn attention. The right of search of suspected poachers granted to police constables in the Northern Ireland Game Preservation Act is now extended to this country, where it replaces the corresponding provisions in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862. When the Act was framed the man to be protected was the lord of the manor and the great landowner. Nowadays it is the new type of syndicate shooter who is mainly affected by the Game Laws. The object of these alterations is to correct the anomalies and absurdities to which I have already alluded.
Finally, the Bill brings some uniformity into the fines inflicted, providing that in all cases the fine upon second and subsequent offences shall be greater than the fine upon the first offence. It further provides that upon a second conviction the court shall be entitled to disqualify the offender from holding a game licence for five years. In no case does the Bill increase the penalty for a first offence. With regard to hares, no alteration has been made in the present law. With regard to legal proceedings, which are dealt with in Part VII, the only altera-
974
tion made in this Part of the Bill is that the period during which proceedings must be commenced has been reduced in all cases to four months for the sake of uniformity. Then there is Part VIII, which is headed "Miscellaneous." This Part of the Bill clears up various minor points. It provides for the new definition of game to include ptarmigan, capercailzie, woodcock, snipe and wild duck, but provides that no alteration shall be made as to the requirement of a licence to kill game or a licence to deal in game in connection with any of these new classes of birds so added.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. As your Lordships will see, it is on a fairly ambitious scale, but I think I may claim that it endeavours to carry out a reform which is very badly needed. I am not sanguine enough to think that a Bill so long and of such magnitude as this is likely to pass into law during the present Session, but I venture to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading to-day, chiefly in order that it may arouse comment from those who are interested in the subject in various parts of the country, and that, although it will not be possible to pass it into law this Session, in another Session, either here or in another place, it may be possible to introduce fresh legislation dealing with the most urgent parts of the subject, with good hope that the common sense of the country will insist on its being passed into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bayford.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but really so many points which are hopelessly obsolete are still included in Bills of this sort that I think it worth while making a very brief protest. The obsolete methods of dealing with trespassers, people who are suspected of having poached game, and so on, are something like three centuries out of date. It is really absurd to include in a consolidating measure of this character penalties and a point of view of that type. We are still, in country districts—and I have in mind certain definite cases—getting people found guilty of poaching as a first offence and sending them to prison for four or five or six weeks. That sort of thing is quite intolerable. It arises from the fact that certain magis-

975
trates think that the preservation of game is more important than the preservation of human rights. Therefore I feel that it is necessary to enter a protest against the continuance in Acts of this sort of that point of view with regard to the importance of game.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, we have listened with great attention to the observations—I can hardly call it a speech—which have been read to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. I can assure him that it is extremely difficult to follow them. His Bill is certainly a very complicated Bill. May I suggest that when he introduces it in a future Session he should preface it with an explanatory Memorandum, which would help us very much? His chances of passing a Bill of this kind are, I am afraid, not very bright. If he had confined himself to the consolidation of the law, I think there would not have been very much difficulty about it, but when he introduces fresh law with relation to game and the offences of poaching and so on, he raises a great number of very contentious questions which may occupy the time of your Lordships and another place for a very long period. At any rate, in order to enable members of this House and the other House, and the public, to understand what the contents of the Bill are, I hope that he will see his way to give us a brief but clear statement of the main changes which are included in his Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I wish to express to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill my regret that it has been impossible in the time available for the Department which I represent to give to the Bill the attention which it requires and deserves. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, copies of the Bill became available only on Friday last, and the Bill, which contains fifty-five clauses, covers so wide a field that detailed examination and consideration of its provisions have proved impossible in the time. I would submit to your Lordships that the Bill before your Lordships' House contains objectionable features, inasmuch as it is not only a consolidating Bill but is also an amending Bill. It will, I think, be agreed that it is at the moment extremely difficult for this House properly to discuss a Bill of this length in which new provisions are
976
intermingled with provisions which merely consolidate the existing law.
No doubt the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill is aware that the subject of wild birds protection has received great attention, and the Home Office, in dealing with this question, is assisted by the Wild Birds Advisory Committee, a Committee over which Viscount Grey of Fallodon presided for many years. Certain proposals in the Bill are, so far as the Home Office knows, novel proposals, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, before coming to any conclusion on the proposals made in the Bill, thinks it only right that this Committee should be given an opportunity of considering this matter. In view of these considerations, and in view also of the assurance which the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has given me that he will not take the Bill to a further stage without giving the Home Office ample opportunity and sufficient time to consider its important amendments of the law, your Lordships will appreciate that it would be improper and in fact unnecessary for me to make a long or more substantial statement at this stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, in moving that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be made, I need only detain you for a minute or two. I would explain that the object of this Bill is merely to consolidate a number of Acts that apply to County Courts. The Bill has already received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and has been before the Consolidation Committee, and the Consolid

977
tion Committee have recommended a number of Amendments, the first of which is in Clause 37. In addition to that the Bill has received very careful scrutiny I think from Lord Bertie, who has found two printing mistakes, which will as such be put right, but it might save your Lordships' time if I simply moved that the Amendments proposed to be made by the Joint Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be made.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Amendments made accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, in order that this Bill, which is a purely formal Bill, may be passed through its remaining stages to-day. It will then be received in another place, and we shall be able to get this Consolidation Bill before we rise at the end of the present month. It is very important that that should be done, because at the present moment the County Court jurisdiction is contained in about twenty different Acts. It is desirable that it should all be consolidated, and the County Court jurisdiction be contained in one Act. There is no new legislation here, but we are simply taking the various clauses out of various Acts and putting them into one Act. The last County Court Act was in 1888, and since then a number of different Acts have been passed amending it in various ways, and the time has come when County Court jurisdiction ought to be put into one Act. We are anxious that this should be done at once, because it affects a very large number of our fellow-countrymen. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the number of County Court cases last year was over 33,000. It is important that the matter should be put right so that people may be able to find out what is the law.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THIS EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as I was unable to be present on the Second Reading I hope your Lordships will excuse a very brief intervention. We law reformers welcome very heartily this consolidation of the law in relation to County Courts, on account of the advantages which it brings to the litigants and to the lawyers, and we are in favour of the codification and tightening up of the English law. Of course we do not expect complete reform at once, but at the same time a Consolidation Bill is a milestone on the road towards legal reform, and it measures the distance that has been traversed as well as the distance that yet lies ahead of us before we reach our goal. I would like especially to congratulate the Government on two important reforms which the Bill contains—namely, the extension of the jurisdiction of the registrar from £5 to £10, and the abolition of certain appeals which will make the cost of litigation much less than it used to be. At the same time we hope that, the law having been codified on this subject, the way will now be open for a more far-reaching reform, and in particular for a gradual extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. We would humbly suggest that this process, if gradual, would not be one that would be either costly to the country or injurious to English law. The jurisdiction might possibly be raised to the small sum of £300 without either dislocating the other business in our County Courts or making the extra cost which the State has to bear quite exorbitant. We make this suggestion in all humility because we hope that the Government, having gone as far as it has gone, will now be able to consider the extremely important problem of raising the present limits which are attached to the jurisdiction of the County Courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for what he has said. I think the House is indebted to him and to the

979
other members who sat on the Consolidation Committee. There is only one small point. The Bill, as I have said, does not make any change at all in the law, but it consolidates two Acts recently passed which do make a change—namely, that which raises the jurisdiction of the registrar from £5 to £10, and also the Act which deals with certain rights of appeal. This Bill does not make any change itself, but it does include those two Acts.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL, [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MILK BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8:
Provisions as to revocation of schemes.
"(2) Where a administered by sums have become, or are to be deemed to have become, payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act is revoked by order of the Minister under paragraph 2 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, then, for the purpose of the winding up of the board, the amount of the said sums (less the amount of any sums which, immediately before the revocation takes effect, have been, or are to be deemed to have been, paid under the said provisions by the board to the Minister) shall be deemed to be a debt due from the board to the Crown and provable by the Minister; and if, within one month from the date on which the revocation takes effect, the Minister publishes in the Gazette a notice stating that, by reason that proceedings are pending or for any other reason, the amount of the sums payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act to the board has not been ascertained, no distribution of the assets of the board shall be made in the winding up until the said amount has been ascertained."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EAEL DE LA WARR)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EAEL DE LA WARR) moved, in subsection (2), after "revoked," to insert "before the beginning of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really quite a small Amendment, introduced in response to a point that has been raised. At present it is quite clear under the Bill that, unless the cheese price of milk rises above sixpence in the summer or sevenpence in the winter, there is no liability on the Milk Board to repay the advance. That is perfectly clear, providing the Milk Board continue in existence. But what appears on a further examination of the Bill is that if, say in 1940 or later, the Milk Marketing Scheme were to be revoked and the Milk Board to wind up its affairs, then there might lie on them a liability for repaying this advance—a liability which would not rest with them if they were continuing. That was not the intention of the Government in putting this Bill before Parliament, and this Amendment will clear the matter up.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, afer ("revoked") insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
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-up area at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.
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 the foregoing subsection he shall be deemed

981
to be guilty of an offence under Section ten of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act).
(7) It shall be the duty of the local authority—
(a) to erect and maintain the prescribed 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 where 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
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert in 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: My Lords, this Amendment was put down for the Committee stage, and, in response to the request of Lord Howe, the noble Earl promised to see if he could give us further information at a later stage about ribbon development of the roads. In consideration of that promise I withdrew my Amendment, which would have made it necessary for the Minister definitely to schedule every by-pass road as being a limited area, and not to have it in the Schedule if he did not want it to be a limited area. Personally I am still of opinion that where roads have been built expressly for the purpose of clearing traffic out of populated areas and getting it away quickly, it is most important that the traffic should be encouraged to use those roads, and not discouraged. It must be remembered that in almost every case the by-pass road is definitely the longer way round, in some cases very much the longer way round; and if there is going to be no advantage in point of
982
time people certainly are not going to pay the additional cost of wear and tear on tyres and the consumption of petrol and oil in going round, when they can go straight across and save that money. If we do not have some necessity for the local authorities to produce reasons why that road should be made a speed-limited area, the danger is that they will not produce equal reasons why it should not, and that what are really essentially motorists' roads will be taken away from the use of motorists, simply because no provision has been made to ensure that they are kept open if it is possible to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, as I imagined, this Amendment has been put down as the result of something I said during the Committee stage as to whether I might be in a position to furnish some further information with regard to this matter of ribbon development. I must first refer to the other aspect of the noble Lord's Amendment, and that is the administrative aspect pure and simple, divorced entirely from the question of the disadvantages of ribbon development. From the administrative point of view I think the Amendment is not really a practicable one. Unfortunately, there are already a number of by-pass roads that have, in respect of certain parts of them at any rate, been built up, and therefore I do not think it is possible at this stage to give a definite direction to the effect that all by-pass roads should not be deemed roads in a built-up area.
In regard to the policy of the Government towards ribbon development, I need hardly repeat what I said during the Committee stage, that the Government are in entire sympathy with the motives which have led various noble Lords to refer to this matter. Quite a short time ago The Times gave prominence to an article on ribbon building from the pen of the Wardens of New College, Oxford, and Magdalene College, Cambridge. There is one point that ought not to be lost sight of altogether, and that is that we are happily not in these days reproducing the grave peril to child life of the cottage with the doorway opening directly on to the carriageway; but

983
ribbon development, in so far as it tends to reduce available road space, because private cars and tradesmen's vans stand on the highway outside the ribbon buildings, has a bearing on the general question of safety on the roads. The objection to ribbon development on grounds of amenity is one which is brought home to every lover of the beauty of the countryside, as well as to every user of the roads; and the question is as much, if not more, a question of town and country planning as a highway question. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport fully recognise the importance of action, and of joint action, in this matter, and are in close consultation in considering this question from its practicable aspects and in searching for a remedy which may be effective: but I am afraid I am not in a position at this stage to forecast the nature of the conclusion they may reach, and still less to give any indication of possible proposals for legislation which may ensue. The House may be assured that the matter is one the importance of which is fully appreciated by His Majesty's Government, and that they are as desirous as the movers of the Amendment to take all practicable steps which may be possible to preserve the amenities of the highways of this country, but I am afraid I am not able to accept the Amendment as it stands.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this point is one which I referred to on the former stages of the Bill. If as a result of the passing of this Bill most of these new arterial roads become limited roads for the purposes of the Bill you are certainly going very largely to detract from the usefulness of these roads. Enormous sums of money, running into many millions of pounds, have been spent on them. That has been justified in the past by the Government by the fact that we must do everything in these times of different sorts of traffic to try to get it away from crowded areas. If you have limits on many of these roads, I cannot think how you are going to get traffic along them. As it is, some of the newer arterial roads are hopelessly crowded at certain times, and many of the arterial roads have been built with very insufficient breadth, that is to say, they are only thirty-foot roads and will only take at the most three lines of traffic. That produces a danger of its own, because it means that the overtaking
984
traffic in both directions is liable to meet, and the result is a danger of head-on collisions. It may be said by your Lordships that that is perhaps all the more reason for having these roads as a speed-limit area. There are many who foresee that as years go on, unless the development of arterial roads keeps pace with the necessities of the travelling public, the traffic congestion is going to be far worse than ever before. I submit that a study of the traffic returns and road casualties will show that the congested areas are amongst the most dangerous.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
EARL HOWE: Yes. I have here a map published by the Safety First Council, which gives the distribution of traffic casualties, and it can be seen from it that the chief traffic casualties are where there is most congestion. The Safety First Council have paid great attention to this matter. I have the map here, and it is actually coloured and is capable of being seen from a distance, although I do not know whether your Lordships are able to see it clearly as I hold it in my hand. This is London, here is Birmingham, and here is Manchester. The map indicates where traffic is at its worst and where the most danger comes. I submit that this matter of ribbon development and the matter of the development of arterial roads are of first-class importance. I hope that the Government will go into the question of limits on these main arterial roads and also on the by-pass roads, because if we do not we are largely in danger of stultifying the enormous amount of money which has been laid out on them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved to insert in subsection (2):
"Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have acted during the hours of darkness in contravention of the foregoing subsection if he proves that the lamps by which a system of street lighting is furnished wore not alight at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which I have put on the Paper has arisen since your Lordships put into the Bill a provision that the speed limit shall be in force throughout the twenty-four hours. The thirty miles an hour speed limit in built-up areas is to be indicated by a system of street light-

985
ing furnished by means of lamps. There are many towns in the country where it is customary at certain times of the year never to light the lamps at all. There are other towns in the North where, during the summer months, the lamps are removed from the posts. There are many towns, and big towns too, where every night at midnight lamps are extinguished. Since the noble Earl resisted the Amendment as to the direction that lights showing where the thirty miles an hour limit came into force should be mandatory on the Minister, I think this Amendment is definitely necessary. We know the spirit in which the House passes certain legislation, but, when it comes down to technicalities and the consideration of these Acts by learned Judges and magistrates, it might be possible for a man who is convicted of exceeding the speed limit in daylight hours to go back to that place in the dark and find the lamps have not been lit and to argue that he cannot be guilty of an offence because the system of lighting does not exist and therefore the thirty miles an hour limit, cannot be in existence at this place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Amendment, in effect, says that where the lamps by which the system of street lighting is furnished are not alight at the time then that road ceases to be in a built-up area, and motors travelling along it cease to be subject to the speed limit. I agree with the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that there are quite a number of places all over the country but, as he says, mainly in the North of England, where street lamps are put out at eleven o'clock, midnight, or one o'clock in the morning, and I might mention parenthetically that this was in fact one of the considerations which weighed with the Minister of Transport when he accepted in another place the Amendment which would have lifted the restriction during the period from midnight to 5 a.m. Another consideration in. the mind of the Minister was that at that stage of the Bill he contemplated that the lighted lamps themselves might be the only signs of warning to the driver; but the Bill has since been amended so as to secure the general provision of adequate illuminated signs for
986
the guidance of drivers in all restricted areas whether there are lamp posts or not. During the Committee stage your Lordships' House decided to require that the speed limit should be in operation for the whole of the twenty-four hours, and therefore to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord who sits behind me would be completely at variance with that decision so recently taken by your Lordships.
At the same time I want to say I fully appreciate the difficulty which the noble Lord has in mind, and the Government are grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the necessity of ensuring that the decision of this House shall not run the risk of being rendered inoperative by any doubt as to whether there is a system of street lighting within the meaning of the Act when these lamps are not actually lit. The Government will take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of the local authorities to the point which the noble Lord has raised, and will point out that in cases when lamps are at times left unlit during hours of darkness they should consider the question of adopting the procedure of "direction" under subsection (4) of this clause to cover those periods during which it may be held that a system of street lighting is not provided. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("section") to end of line 10.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("or") insert ("ought not")
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("an order giving a direction") and insert ("a direction given by an order").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments 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

987
of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down because the discussion on the Committee stage was somewhat nebulous and not quite clear. On the Committee stage the noble Earl replying for the Government said the effect of this Amendment would be to require thirty-miles-an-hour signs to be placed every 200 yards along such streets as the Strand, High Street, Hammersmith, and any other street you like to mention, and at a later stage he said:
"There are cases in which it would be of practical assistance to the motorist that such road signals should be erected, and this question is now under discussion with the motoring organisations concerned."
He appealed to me not to press my Amendment, to which I agreed, but I asked whether it would be possible for him to tell your Lordships anything more on this particular point at a later stage of the Bill. The noble Earl then replied:
"I am afraid I cannot say as to that, but I will make inquiries and find out."
There is going to be a real difficulty for the motorist who desires to observe the law under this Bill in some places. Unless you can ensure that there will be a sufficient number of road signs it really will be an absolute impossibility under certain conditions for drivers to know when they are in a limited area and when they are not.
Some areas that have lamp-posts look like limited areas, but will be derestricted, and it is important that the derestricted areas should be known. It is also important that the restricted areas should be known. I would also remind your Lordships of the fact that this Bill brings within its ambit men who are earning their livelihood, and of the very serious results to them of offences committed under this Bill. Therefore, I do hope that the noble Earl will be able to-day to give us some sort of assurance on this point. We are not asking for a very great expenditure of money necessarily, but are merely asking for a declaration on the part of the Government with regard to repeat signs. It may be that the lamp-posts in the area will be painted with a red band on them or in whatever other way that the Minister of Transport may like to distinguish them, or it may be that signs of a more
988
permanent character will be erected in other areas. Whichever way it is, I feel that we ought to give the driver of a motor vehicle a real chance to know whether or not he is in a limited area. I 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: My Lords, I think the noble Earl knows that the Minister has already indicated to the representative organisations concerned that it is his intention, when a road is restricted or derestricted under the provisions of subsection (4) of this clause, that drivers shall be adequately informed of the fact, and the direction of subsection (7) (a) clearly requires the Minister to take the necessary steps for this purpose. I want to emphasise one aspect of the situation as far as this point is concerned. It is that it is the intention of the Minister to bring into full consultation the motoring associations who are so closely concerned with this point and naturally the local authority associations as well. As a matter of fact, he has already had some preliminary consultations with these associations, and he will undoubtedly consult further with them before giving the general directions contemplated by subsection (7) (a) of this clause.
But I do suggest to the House that it is highly undesirable to provide in the Bill itself for the exact intervals at which signs should be erected. To take one objection to the noble Earl's suggestion, in some cases it would be necessary under his proposals to erect signs at intervals of a few yards—that is in a case which might quite often occur of an important side road entering the restricted road at a point which was just over 200 yards from a speed-limit sign. Therefore I do suggest that it is undesirable to lay down specific regulations with regard to this matter. I would like to emphasise again that in so far as this point is concerned, as in many other respects in connection with the Bill, the Government confidently look to the co-operation of the motoring associations in framing the details of the scheme in a reasonable and practicable manner, and with that assurance I very much hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("illumination") to ("of") in line 6.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Penalty for reckless or dangerous driving.
4. 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).
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to the clause "or for an offence under Section 15 of the principal Act (which relates to driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs)." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, surely, it is a very serious offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. The penalty at present on summary conviction is, I think, four months and, on a second conviction, six months. I think it might well be made two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the penalty for dangerous driving was increased by an Amendment inserted by your Lordships in Committee, and the point of that is that Clause 33 links together the charges of manslaughter and dangerous driving and allows a verdict of dangerous driving to be returned on an indictment for manslaughter. I cannot see that there really is any analogy between the two cases, that which the noble Viscount has raised on this Amendment and that which was dealt with in Committee, and I do not think that he has made out a case for increasing the penalty in this case where the element of dangerous driving does not occur. I would like to inform the noble Viscount, as he probably knows perfectly well, that drunkenness is no defence to a charge of dangerous driving. I hope he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
".A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (4) of Section seven of the principal Act (which relates to driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified for so doing) shall in addition to or in substitution for the penalties therein provided be liable to such further period of disqualification as the court shall order."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of a penalty in an act of Parliament is that it shall act as a deterrent, and I do not think a person who drives a motor car whilst he is disqualified from so doing can be liable to a greater deterrent than a further period of disqualification. I noticed that some time ago at the Faringdon Petty Sessions a man was charged and found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified, and the Chairman said:
"We take a serious view of the offence and we are very sorry we cannot make your disqualification extend over a period of years. Such people as you are a danger to the public using the highway."
It is true that the people who drive while they are disqualified are liable to a term of imprisonment, but your Lordships know that magistrates are very loath to inflict imprisonment on anybody. I hope after what I have said, that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept this Amendment, which I consider a very reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount must have put this Amendment down under a misapprehension. I am advised that it is perfectly within the powers of magistrates now in a case such as he cited to disqualify from driving for a further period. I am informed that under Section 6 (1) (a) of the principal Act, on a conviction under Section 74, the court has already the power to disqualify the offender for such period as the court thinks fit. Therefore the Amendment appears to be quite unnecessary, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I certainly shall not press the Amendment at the present time, but I should like to have the opportunity of

991
checking what the noble Viscount has said, although I do not disbelieve him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Exceeding speed limits and careless driving (endorsement of licence and disqualification).
5.—(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
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1), after "shall," to insert "unless for any special reason the court thinks fit to order otherwise." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises the question which I brought forward in Committee of the possible hardship to the driver if his licence is endorsed on account of a mere technical offence in exceeding the speed limit. I am very grateful to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for having reconsidered this matter and communicated with me. I hope that this method of making a mitigation in that severity may meet with the approval of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("shall") insert ("unless for any special reason the court
992
thinks fit to order otherwise.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I feel that I must say one word in addition to what has been said, because I think that possibly the Minister when framing this Bill did not quite realise some of the offences covered by the expression "careless driving." When the offence of careless driving was included in the original Act it was actually said by one speaker that careless driving was meant to cover bad manners. I saw an almost perfect example of that to-day. I was driving, and being hailed by a policeman I stopped some twenty yards from the end of the road to enable traffic to go round the corner. It was raining hard at the time. I pulled well into my side of the road. A small car came up and instead of pulling up on the white line went past it. The policeman rightly left his point and lectured the driver of the small car severely. He did not take his name or number, realising that it was an inadvertent mistake and a piece of pure carelessness or bad manners.
I suggest that if the policeman had been a younger man he might have said to that driver: "Just let me look at your licence." If he had looked at the licence and possibly found an endorsement for careless driving, he would have said: "Oh, you have been had before, we will have you again." That is an attitude we have to take into account and it would be a very bad thing if a paid driver, a chauffeur or van-driver, was summoned for some purely technical offence and had his licence endorsed possibly a second time for a very minor offence. The same situation might arise in the case of the speed limit. A man might be driving quite reasonably along some road where a speed far in excess of thirty miles an hour would be quite safe with two or three cars in no hurry going along at about twenty-four or twenty-five miles an hour. If he pulled out at thirty miles an hour he would be within the law, but for quite a period he might be creating a dangerous position on the road because there was no room for more than three lines of traffic and he would be occupying the second line. If he passed those cars nicely and quickly the danger period would be over before any chance of danger arose, but a police car behind him might run him in for doing thirty-

993
five miles an hour when actually by doing that he would be less dangerous than it he stuck to the letter of the law. If a man's licence is to be endorsed in such circumstances I submit there would be great hardship
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take account of what has been, said in support of this Amendment. It is purely a matter of administration of the law, which ought to have as its aim the promotion of good conduct. In cases where there has been a technical offence there must be a prosecution because the law must be kept in force, but it would be a great pity if, when a man came up for some technical offence which in itself was harmless, his licence should have to be endorsed of necessity. In the case of a man dependent for his livelihood on driving it might be a great hardship on him if his licence was found to be endorsed when he came up again. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to attend to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and will accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I support the Amendment which has been moved although I have one on the Paper which is slightly different in character. I should like to say that I think my noble friend Lord Sandhurst was not quite correct in a statement he made just now when he related an incident which happened today. He suggested that the police officer would have been able to inspect the driver's licence and see an endorsement. I think I am correct in saying that that would not be the case either under this Bill or under the original Act. A policeman has no power to inspect a licence. It must be shown to him, but he is not allowed to handle it or to turn over the pages to find out whether there are endorsements.
The point I want no make is that there will undoubtedly be a large number of charges if the provisions of this Bill are enforced, as no doubt they will be, and a great number of convictions will be registered against drivers who do not want in the least to break the law. I want to impress that on your Lordships. Not everybody who breaks the law is necessarily a man who goes out in the spirit of intending to break the law. A
994
large number of people will be convicted who have no intention of breaking the law. Very often the offences with which they are charged will be cases of pure inadvertence. It will be difficult for drivers to know at all times whether they are in a restricted area or not, and so quite inadvertently a man might commit an offence. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider this matter sympathetically. I am not going to press my Amendment, although I prefer it because it puts the question the other way round. If the Government are prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment I shall certainly support it, and I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I confess to a great deal of doubt about this Amendment, and that doubt is mainly caused by the speeches which have been made in its favour. I totally disagree with the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The object of this Bill is to improve the safety of the roads. When it is said that there is some terrific hardship because a man may be convicted who was not quite sure whether he was in a restricted area or not, that seems to me an illustration of the perverted view of certain motorists. If the motorist is in doubt he must keep within thirty miles an hour. If there is any conceivable doubt he must do that. The idea that there is something terrible in having driven at thirty miles an hour when you might have driven at forty or fifty miles an hour leaves me, I confess, quite cold.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale put an entirely different case, and I quite agree that there is something in it, but even there what I am afraid of is that if this possibility of not endorsing the licence is given, in a great many cases the licence will not be endorsed. That is the fear which I have. I think that if we are to stamp out this evil we must have a much stricter and more vigorous administration of the law than we have at present. Even guarded as it is by the Amendment, I am a little afraid of giving to courts an opportunity not to take a strict view of these matters. After all, in a normal case, apart from exceptional circumstances, it ought to be regarded as a very serious offence indeed for a motorist to go at a greater speed than thirty miles

995
an hour in a restricted area. If there is any sense in enacting it at all, it is enacted in order to create safety on the roads, and anyone who infringes that provision, even if he does not cause danger himself, by his example encourages dangerous driving in others.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sure my noble friend will observe that the justices must enforce the law as it now is useless there is special reason why there should not be an endorsement. My own view about the matter is that if justices are slack about it there may be an appeal. There must be a special reason; that is my view about it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I admit that if there can be an appeal on the ground that there was no special reason for doing it, that is a very powerful argument. I do not know whether that is so, but if my noble friend says so it almost certainly is so. But I should be very glad to hear from the Government whether they are quite satisfied, and I hope they will not yield to this Amendment unless they are quite satisfied, that it will not materially weaken the provisions of their Bill in this respect.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, which is of a very limited character, especially after the observations which have been made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale. The Amendment does not in any way interfere with the necessity for a conviction. All that this provision will do, if it is amended as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is to give the magistrate a discretion if there is a special reason, but he will have no discretion unless there is a special reason. I would myself have preferred the Amendment to have been even a little wider in its terms, because I can see a difficulty for the magistrate. He will have to have some special fact before him upon which he can exercise his judgment. On the Amendment as it stands, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cecil need not be under any misapprehension that the law will not be enforced or that magistrates will be unduly lenient.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Almost all of them are motor drivers.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: They must all find special facts upon which
996
they can exercise this judgment. I cannot think that the Government would be giving anything away by making the law just a little less rigid in this respect than it would be under the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I remind your Lordships that a magistrate has power, if he thinks that for any special circumstance a man who has been convicted of driving a motor car while under the influence of drink or drugs should not have his licence suspended for twelve months, not to suspend the licence?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this matter has been fully debated not only in another place but in your Lordships' House. During the Committee stage I gave an undertaking that the Government would reconsider this question, and naturally I have been into the whole question again very carefully. It is therefore incumbent upon me to restate the position of the Government in regard to this matter. Perhaps the Government approach it from a slightly different point of view from anyone else who has spoken in regard to it. The Government feel that if Parliament decides to impose speed limits, the court, before passing sentence on a person found guilty of such a charge, ought to know whether it was a first offence or one indicating habitual disregard of the law. Unless endorsement of the licence be required, the court will often have no knowledge of previous convictions, however recent they may be. I ought to remark at this stage that, under the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 5, endorsements for exceeding a speed limit may be cleared after the lapse of the short period of one year. It has been contended by some that you can even now establish the records of people in this matter by applications to courts and so on, but I do not think that that argument really holds water in connection with a man who drives all over the country; and it very often is the long-distance drivers who offend in respect of this particular matter. It is clearly quite impossible to circulate all these convictions to all courts throughout the country.
The Government, as I should like to emphasise, do not overlook the plea that endorsement of a licence may prove a great handicap to an individual seeking employment, but I feel that on the other

997
hand it might quite well be argued that in fairness alike to an employer and to applicants for employment, an applicant with a clean licence ought to be given the preference, especially in view of the risk that a conviction for a speed limit offence may affect the employer as well as the driver. The question resolves itself into this: Ought consideration of possible hardship to the individual to permit the will of Parliament to be held in light regard? Parliament has decided that after a year's probation the previous record of speed offences may be expunged, and speaking for myself I cannot see that it is too much to ask that in order to secure proper respect for the law, the magistrates should have before them a complete record of previous cases in which a convicted person has disregarded the law within so short a space of time as twelve months. I have tried to show that in spite of what has been said the Government are still strongly in favour of retaining the clause as it stands at present. I would add that if your Lordships see fit to make any change or any modification in the clause, I agree that the method suggested by the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite would probably be the best way of doing it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after "conviction," to insert "including, in the case of speed limit offences, the speed alleged." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a very simple one, designed to make sure that a man who has his licence endorsed for a trivial excess of speed shall, when he commits a similar offence, have a record in his licence that the excess of speed was in fact trivial. It is certainly very important that a magistrate should not be misled by an endorsement which merely reads: "Convicted of exceeding the speed limit." He may have been doing eighty miles an hour, or he may have been doing thirty-two miles an hour. I think it is important that magistrates should have that information before them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, after ("conviction") insert ("including, in the case of speed limit offences, the speed alleged.")—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VTSCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I suggest to my noble friend that I think
998
a more appropriate word than "alleged" would be "proved"?
LORD SANDHURST: I would certainly agree to that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord realises that in a prosecution for exceeding a speed limit the record of conviction does not include the court's finding as to the actual speed but merely records the fact that the speed was in excess of the stipulated limit. The Amendment as it stands asks for the speed alleged to be endorsed upon the licence, and this would often mean the endorsement of an allegation of speed which the court itself did not accept as true. In fact, I am informed that the Road Transport side of the National Joint Conciliation Board has represented to the Minister that the speeds alleged in prosecutions are at times speeds of which the vehicles are incapable, and these are among the allegations which the noble Lord's Amendment would require to be endorsed upon the licence. A case very often arises where you may have two witnesses on an occasion of this kind, and one says the motorist is doing forty miles an hour and the other possibly forty-five miles an hour. As things are at present the only endorsement on the licence, or the only record in the conviction, is to the effect that the person charged was exceeding the speed limit of thirty miles an hour, or whatever it may be. I feel that in view of the fact that it might result in the highest speed being recorded in these convictions, it would not be any help to the driver himself to have the actual speed recorded. I hope that in the circumstances the Amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), in paragraph (a) of the substituted subsection (5) of Section 8 of the principal Act, after "limit", 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: My Lords, this relates to a point which really has not been debated in either House of Parliament, although the Amendment was placed on the Paper on the Report stage in the House of Commons and in the Committee stage in this House. Unfortunately, I was not

999
able to be here to move it during the Committee stage, and it was put off till Report. It relates to conviction for an offence under Section 12 of the principal Act, which relates to careless driving.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, after ("limit") insert ("or of a conviction for an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving)").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to make it possible for an endorsement of a conviction for careless driving to be expunged after the lapse of twelve months, just as an endorsement of a conviction for exceeding the speed limit can be dealt with in that way. The Government, I am afraid, cannot accept the Amendment. After all, the offence of careless driving is by general consent upon a different plane from that of exceeding a speed limit, and it is generally accepted, I think, that in many cases the courts record a conviction of careless driving in circumstances where it may fairly be represented that in fact a substantial element of danger to the public was involved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
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 qualifications, selection and appointment of persons by whom they may be conducted and to the revocation of any appointment, 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;

(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;

and different regulations may be made with respect to tests of competence to
1000
drive different classes or descriptions of vehicles.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to paragraph (c) in subsection (5), the words "except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next succeeding subsection" and to insert a new subsection (6). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would like to be allowed to take these Amendments together. I would like to say in regard to this matter that the Government are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the important question with which the Amendment deals on the Committee stage of the Bill. I pointed out on that stage that there were certain practical difficulties in accepting an Amendment in the form proposed by the noble Earl, but I agreed that useful publicity would be given if a case arose in which the authorised examiner refused to pass a candidate for a reason other than that of driving incompetency.
The Government have already invited the co-operation of the important motor organisations, including that over which the noble Earl presides, not merely in the determination of the nature of the driving tests, but also in the selection of the persons to be employed in the conduct of those tests. The House may be assured that every endeavour will be made to secure the appointment of persons, not merely of known ability, but also of unimpeachable integrity, but there is unhappily the possibility of human frailty in any large body of men; and it is admittedly desirable that there should be adequate opportunity for investigating any charge of lack of fair play in a driving test examination. The Amendments now proposed by the Government will give a practical opportunity of calling attention to such a case; and it may be not inappropriate to remind the House that, also at the instance of the noble Earl, provision is now made in the Bill for the revocation of the appointment of an examiner, if the need should arise. I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will accept these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 27, at end insert ("except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next succeeding subsection")
Page 9, line 30, at end insert:

1001
("(6) A court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which a person who has submitted himself for a test of competence to drive resides shall have power on the application of that person to determine whether the test was properly conducted in accordance with the regulations, and, if it appears to the court that the test was not so conducted, the court may order that the applicant shall be eligible to submit himself to another test before the expiration of the period (prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, and may order that any fee payable by the applicant in respect of the test shall not be paid or, if it has been paid, shall be repaid.")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the noble Earl has said, and of course, as I have an Amendment immediately bearing on the same point, I am delighted to see what has been put down by the Government. There is, however, one point to which I should like to direct the noble Earl's attention, and that is that this procedure laid down here will add special importance to the composition of the courts before whom these cases will come. My whole idea is that driving tests should be real tests and not make-believe, and in cases where appeals are brought under the procedure now laid down it will be very important for the court to have considerable expert knowledge. I have an Amendment on the Paper, which I propose to move at a later stage, to deal with that point, but no doubt the Government will bear it in mind. If appeals are to come before a court of summary jurisdiction it is extremely important that there should be someone on the bench who will have expert knowledge and experience to deal with these very difficult questions, and in the event of nobody of expert knowledge being a magistrate on the bench, that someone should be there to assist them. I will move that at a later stage, but meanwhile I welcome the Government Amendments and thank the noble Earl for what he has said.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of sale of vehicles in, or alteration thereof to, a condition not complying with regulations as to construction etc.
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to sell, or to supply, or to offer to Sell or supply, a motor
1002
vehicle or trailer for delivery in such a condition that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of Section three of the principal Act.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of the said Section three.
(3) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, supplied, offered, or altered, in contravention of the provisions of this section, any person who so sells, supplies, offers, or alters it, or causes or permits it to be so sold, supplied, offered, or altered, shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A person shall not be convicted for an offence under this section in respect of the sale, supply, offer, or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if ho proves that it was sold, supplied, offered, or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, although this Amendment appears very formidable it is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. This clause embodies the subject matter of Clauses 37 and 38 which were moved into the Bill in Committee stage on Thursday last. We are advised that their more appropriate place is in Part I rather than in Part V. It has been found necessary to provide for the common practice of "part exchange" under which a person may hand over to a dealer, in part consideration for a new vehicle, one which is admittedly in a defective condition, but will not be used on the road until reconditioned; and the provisions with regard to export have been applied alike to the sold and to the altered vehicle. Subject to this, the House may be assured that the new clause embodies the whole of the substance of Clauses 37 and 38.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, since this point was raised in your Lordships' House last week representations of a most urgent character have been made by certain sections of the motor trade, and I think they should be in your Lordships' minds when considering this Amendment. For instance, motor vehi-

1003
cles, it has been represented to me, often come into the stocks of various firms in part exchange for new or better vehicles, and have to be re-sold by those firms often on the understanding that the purchaser requires the old vehicle in its indifferent state, knowing he will have to spend a considerable amount of money in repairs upon it before he puts it into use. There is also the case of a purchaser with engineering skill who purchases a second-hand vehicle in order to execute the necessary work upon it with his own hands. The various sections of the motor trade that are affected view the whole of this matter with the greatest possible apprehension. They do not know exactly how far it is going to lead them.
The question of noisy motor vehicles is one of extreme difficulty. I have every sympathy with those who say that the exhausts of many cars are too noisy, but the question of excessive noise is very much a matter of personal opinion. I myself have had actually to argue this point before a court of summary jurisdiction in the London area, and, while the police alleged that a certain vehicle was making too much noise, I was able to prove that the vehicle was not making too much noise, though I do not in the least blame the constable for bringing the case before the court. It is entirely a matter of opinion, and obviously a very difficult one to decide. I feel that the Amendment may in certain circumstances work very unfairly in the case of some motor agents, and I certainly think that the public welfare is quite sufficiently covered by existing legislation, which can be extraordinarily strict, and can do a great deal to reduce noise.
The wording of the existing Act is rather difficult. It says, I believe, that the motor car must not be driven in such a fashion as to cause noise. That is to say, an engine may be "revved up" at very high revolutions and make a tremendous lot of noise, or a car may be old and in urgent need of repair to some of its gears, and that may be held to constitute too much noise. The motor trader in most cases is certainly not aiding or abetting a breach of the law. I do not think there are many cars which, as they are sold, make too much noise; the fault is nearly always the fault of the user. He either uses his car in such a way as to give legitimate grounds of complaint, or he makes some alteration to
1004
it. I think it is the user who should be "dropped on," not the motor trader.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Avoidance of restrictions on scope of policies covering third-party risks.
11. Where a certificate of insurance has been delivered under subsection (5) of Section thirty-six of the principal Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any of the following matters:—
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries; or
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in paragraph (c), after "vehicle," to insert "not being a motor cycle." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the next Amendment, also standing in my name, for the insertion of a new clause ("Provisions with respect to licences for motor cycles"). The difficulty with which I am faced is this. I find on reading the Bill—what I had not realised on the Committee stage—that any ordinary motor cycle that is not insured for carrying passengers will in future have to be insured for carrying passengers. It is the insurance companies which have got to pay. Your Lordships may not quite realise what a difference that is going to make to motor cyclists. I have here a copy of the Motor Cycle, in which they say that in certain cases it will make a difference of £4 13s. 9d. a year to the motor insurance, and will, in fact, bring the cost of the policy up to £14 1s. 8d., which may be as much as one-third of the cost of the motor bicycle when new—which means that when it is two years old you pay more for your insurance than you paid for the bicycle.
That, I submit, is a very grave hardship, and I should be very glad to hear from the Government whether, before they introduced this clause, they made inquiries of the insurance companies as to what its effect was going to be. My information is that two insurance companies, the Eagle Star and British Dominion and the Ocean Accident, have already notified their motor cycle policy holders that if they want to take out a policy for a solo machine in the future they will have to pay the premium for

1005
carrying a passenger. We have something like 580,000 motor cycles in this country, and approximately half the owners of those motor cycles insure to carry passengers. I very much doubt whether the number of the others who are absolutely determined law-breakers is so large that every motor cycle should be insured to carry passengers. It is quite a simple matter to ensure that every motor cycle is licensed to carry a passenger, or not to carry a passenger, for when that licence is being obtained they have to produce their insurance certificate, showing whether they are licensed to carry a passenger or not. It is very simple for a policeman to see, because under the existing law you may not carry a passenger unless there is an attachment to the cycle specifically for the purpose. Anybody standing on the side of the road can see whether there is such an attachment on the motor cycle, If there is such an attachment, all the policeman has to do is to look and see whether the motor cycle is, in fact, licensed to carry a passenger. If it is not, what is the attachment there for? That man will then find himself very quickly getting into trouble.
I maintain that the average motor cyclist is a law-abiding creature. He is not out to break the law deliberately. He is out to give other people a square deal, and among those other people he includes his insurance company. I do not think it is fair to penalise the man who rides a, very cheap, light motor cycle for the sake of economy in getting to his work, by causing him to pay for carrying a passenger when he does not want to carry one and has no intention of carrying one.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, after ("vehicle") insert ("not being a motor cycle").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the Government will be able to give a sympathetic reply with regard to this particular question. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed the very large number of working men who travel on motor cycles in order to get to and from their place of employment. The numbers of motor cycles in this country have just been given by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, and I feel that it is a matter of very great importance. It is quite possible that the attitude of the
1006
insurance companies with regard to motor cycles may even be extended to the car population of this country. For instance, you may get a motor car constructed to carry four people and perhaps carrying six in it. It is stated in the insurance policy that it is only constructed to carry four, and perhaps six or eight passengers are being carried. No harm whatever can possibly result to the public, no danger can be alleged to anybody, but just because the policy does not cover this particular point it may conceivably be said that motor insurance policies will have to be increased because the motor insurance companies will have to cover this risk under the Bill.
I do hope we shall be able to do something to deal sympathetically with the motor cycling interests. The motor cyclist is, after all, a small man. He is a fellow who cannot go in for an expensive vehicle like some of those which will leap to your Lordships' minds. Therefore if the Government can accept this Amendment, not perhaps in this precise form but at least in some form like it, it would go a long way to remove a deep-seated grievance. The 50 per cent, increase all round in motor cycle premiums with which we are faced is a very serious matter, and I am quite sure the Government do not intend that anything like that should happen.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I rather wanted to support this Amendment. I am not quite sure if I am right, in my understanding of it, but I had occasion to have a case on the bench the other day of an accident to a motor cyclist carrying a pillion passenger, and in his insurance policy there was some small print at the bottom which stated that the whole insurance became void if he was carrying a pillion passenger and therefore third-party risks on the road were not protected. That is a very serious danger. I support this Amendment because I think it will secure that motor cyclists will be covered as regards third-party risks. If I am right in this I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken misunderstands the situation. This Amendment divides motor cycles into two classes: those who carry pillion

1007
passengers and those who do not, and the premium on third-party insurance risks naturally differ in these cases. But this will not prevent—that is my point—people who are not insured against such risks from carrying pillion passengers. That is the real difficulty. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, and I should like to explain the position as we see it. These two Amendments are designed to enable a motor cyclist to obtain insurance against third-party risks which shall cover the use of the cycle only so long as it is used without a pillion passenger. As a matter of fact the object of Clause 11 of the Bill is to eliminate, as far as practicable, the grounds on which an insurer may repudiate liability in the event of injury being caused to a third party by an insured driver. Cases of accidents have occurred in which liability has been lawfully repudiated by an insurer on the ground that the assured motor cyclist had taken out a policy which did not cover the use of the cycle if a pillion passenger were carried. That is the very instance to which the noble Lord opposite was referring.
I am informed that to-day only about half of the insured motor cycle drivers have policies which cover the use of the cycle with a pillion passenger. It can only be a matter of conjecture how many of the remaining motor cyclists do in fact, either habitually or on occasion, carry a pillion passenger and so invalidate their insurance cover. I quite admit that the motor cyclist who would never at any time or in any circumstances carry a pillion passenger may suffer some measure of hardship under this clause, but against this must be set the removal of a far greater hardship in the case of the third party who might be deprived of compensation if injured by the negligent driving of a motor cyclist who, by carrying a pillion passenger, had invalidated his insurance policy.
I must confess I am somewhat surprised by the figure quoted by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment as to the effect on motor cycle premiums which would result if this provision came into operation, and I say, of course, speaking without having been able to go into the matter very carefully, that in my opinion an increase of that description would not be actuarially justified. But
1008
apart from that, there is this point. I admit that this Amendment might share the burden of insurance premium more fairly between the different classes of motor cyclists, but it would not in any way help the Case of the insured person himself. As I said, it would be possible for a man to take out an insurance policy as the owner of a motor cycle, of a cycle that was not so built as to carry a pillion passenger, but there is nothing to prevent his doing so if he wishes, and although the noble Lord behind me said it would be easy to discover him I venture to differ from him on that particular point. Even if some additional charge were to be imposed on the motor cyclist, I have little doubt your Lordships will think it is really of greater moment that the injured third party should be protected from the risk of the avoidance of the policy and consequent loss of any compensation. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, we are always hearing it said there are many cases where the policy is voided and so no compensation is payable. I should like to know if the noble Earl or his Department has any figures to show how many of these cases there are. I am asking this as a matter of interest because I have never heard any figures, and I thought perhaps his Department might have some information on the point.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am not in a position to give exact figures, but we do know that a considerable number of these cases arise.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 [Payments and insurance in respect of emergency treatment of injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles on roads]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, after ("is") insert ("first")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment is also really in effect drafting, because it is quite obvious a hospital cannot travel to the scene of

1009
an accident, and therefore this provision does not apply.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 43, after ("shall") insert (", so far as applicable,").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions as to claims for, and supplementary provisions as to, payments for emergency treatment]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 37, after the second ("was") insert ("first").
Page 16, line 39, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 40.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Foot-passenger crossings.
(2) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the precedence of vehicles and foot-passengers respectively, and generally with respect to the movement of traffic (including foot-passengers) at and in the vicinity of a crossing (including regulations prohibiting foot-passenger traffic on the carriage-way within one 'hundred yards of a crossing), and with respect to the indication of the limits of a crossing by marks on the roadway or otherwise, and to the erection of traffic signs in connection therewith.
(10) This section shall not apply to the London Traffic Area constituted under the London Traffic Act, 1924.
EARL EATHURST EARL EATHURST moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "(including regulations prohibiting foot passenger traffic on the carriage-way within one hundred yards of a crossing)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am going to ask you to omit these few words in subsection (2). I contend in the first place that these words are unnecessary because there is already power taken just a sentence before in the same subsection for the Minister to make regulations with respect to the precedence of vehicles and foot passengers respectively, and generally with respect to the movement of traffic (including foot passengers) at and in the vicinity of a crossing. That is the first reason why I ask you to strike out those words. There is a second reason and it is this. I contend that the conditions of this subsection confer a
1010
most arbitrary power and put an entirely new aspect on rights of way and on the rights of passengers to walk on the streets. I submit that this is an infringement of the rights of those people.
Every man, woman and child has the right to walk down the road or across the road, it is true at their own risk in these days with the danger that there is from fast driving motorists; still the right exists and this clause will curtail that right. I should like to know what some judicial opinion on this question would be. And there are other reasons. There are occasions when the roads are almost empty. Take a Sunday morning or a Sunday night in some places. If this clause is allowed to go through un-amended I should like to know whether people are obliged solemnly to walk one hundred yards to a crossing before they can cross the road when there is no danger in their doing so. Take the case of people who live in houses about a hundred yards from a crossing. They may have business on the other side of the road. There may be a Post Office or even a post box on the other side of the road. Are those people to be obliged to walk the hundred yards down the road to the regulation crossing, then walk another hundred yards back on the other side of the road in order to post a letter? Or there, may be a public-house on the other side of the road and they may want a drink. Are they to go through the task of walking a hundred yards down one side of the road and a hundred yards back on the other side? This subsection would put a strain on public patience and I am quite sure it would be most unpopular.
I have mentioned people who want to cross the road a hundred yards from a crossing. The answer to that is that instead of walking the hundred yards to the crossing and back again, they might walk ten or twenty yards in the opposite direction so as to get out of the area, of the hundred yards crossing. Then they could walk across the road, but at their own risk, and the conditions will be just as bad as if they were allowed to cross twenty, thirty or fifty yards from the crossing near their home. There is no safety, but only inconvenience, in this regulation. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see the object of my Amendment and will, if possible, agree to it. I think if the Bill is allowed to

1011
go through as it is this provision will be found a most intolerable nuisance. Your Lordships are rightly reputed to have a sense of justice for the people in the street, and I ask you to support me in moving that these few words be left out of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 27, leave out from ("crossing') to ("and") in line 29.—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, how can any member of your Lordships' House, with the appalling return of road accidents before us, possibly move such an Amendment and try to justify it on the ground that it is merely a slight annoyance to the pedestrian to go a few yards further on to find a crossing? The whole justification for this Bill is surely the question of public safety. We should never have had this Bill before us if it had not been for the question of public safety. Scores of thousands of people are being injured, and thousands are losing their lives. All too many of them are pedestrians, and all too many of these accidents are occurring at crossing places. The figures are before us and I need not recite them, but we are reinforced in this matter by opinions from road authorities up and down the country.
I have quotations from utterances made by Chief Constables. There is, for instance, the Chief Constable of Salford, who says that nine out of twelve deaths result from the carelessness or stupidity of pedestrians. The Chief Constable of Manchester says very much the same thing, and he adds that a motorist is compelled to obey regulations whereas the pedestrian can please himself. Again, we have the general manager of the Glasgow Corporation who said the same thing. I will not weary your Lordships with a number of quotations, but I do appeal to you in the interests of public safety not to accept this Amendment. I am perfectly certain that it could not be justified by the figures before us. The one thing that is absolutely essential to my mind is that these crossing places should be used, and I am delighted to see the efforts made by the general mass of the population to use them. I think it is a very remarkable tribute to the success so far obtained by the experiment that the crossings are being used to the extent that they are.
1012
There are considerable difficulties about them. Both the drivers of vehicles and pedestrians themselves have been none too sure what the regulations with regard to these crossing places are, but any one of your Lordships who goes about London now must have noticed that the pedestrians are using them, and that they are going to become the same great factor of safety that they have been in all other countries. After all, we are not making an untried experiment. In every country that you go to abroad you will find these crossing places and you will find stricter regulations there than have ever been contemplated in this country. People have been brought up in Paris, Berlin and many other cities elsewhere for ignoring the crossing places. The result is that those crossing places are now used and they contribute to public safety. I hope that we shall at any rate strike one blow for public safety by rejecting this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I would like to support heartily what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said. I feel most strongly that this Amendment may well destroy the most beneficial part of the whole Bill. After all, 2,500 people were killed last year through crossing the road, and I believe that at least 50 per cent, of those lives could be saved this year if you laid down enough footway crossings. As the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) said on another occasion, it is no reason for not passing a clause because you will only save ninety lives. Surely, then, if you do not save over 1,000 lives by this clause it is worth while saving 500. Therefore I urge your Lordships, with all the sincerity that I can as a motor driver, not to accept this Amendment. We only have to go across to the Square outside your Lordships' House to see that pedestrians will not observe these crossings. At the crossing leading into Great George Street I have over and over again had to stop in order to avoid pedestrians who refuse to go with other pedestrians across the white lines and insist on the right to cross the road five yards away. It is all very well to talk about rights, but people ought to realise that if they insist on the right to cross the road where they like they may be also insisting on the right to go to that bourne from which even a pedestrian never returns.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. Clearly if pedestrian crossings are to achieve their greatest possible usefulness pedestrians must use them. In the interests of public safety the pedestrian is to be given priority at certain points, and it is reasonable to require at the same time that vehicular traffic should not be impeded by the presence of pedestrians on the carriageway in the vicinity of a crossing. After all, this is not much of a sacrifice to ask of pedestrians. It is only at the most a question of one hundred yards. The noble Earl behind me says that from time immemorial pedestrians have had the right to cross the road at any point, and he added, advisedly, at their own risk nowadays. I dare say that may be so, but we feel that the time has come when pedestrians will have to be protected against risks from which they will not protect themselves. I really do feel that pedestrians, in common with all other users of the road, must make their contribution towards the solving of this terrible problem and towards lessening the danger of accidents upon the roads. Unless every user of the road combines to that end I am afraid the result which will be achieved will never be as satisfactory as we should like.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has entirely misunderstood the object of my Amendment. I am the last person in the world to want to increase the number of deaths or accidents caused by motor cars. I said so on the Committee stage. This Bill has been brought in to try to decrease the lamentable number of deaths, but I am afraid that the noble Earl, who has been one of the leaders of those who put down Amendments on behalf of the motorist, is one who has overcome that feeling about accidents and deaths. The whole object of those noble Lords who support him is to increase the pace of motor cars. Take the case of the Amendment dealing with by-pass roads. It was simply designed to enable cars to go a little faster. I suppose the noble Earl has seen the Report of the Ministry of Transport which clearly states that speed is the main cause of accidents and that pedestrians are killed, not so much through carelessness or lack of education, but simply through physical in-
1014
ability to escape. Yet noble Lords want to enable motorists to go faster.
If a pedestrian wishes to cross the road and is not very far from one of these crossings he will naturally go to the crossing. I have myself enjoyed the privilege of going across at these points safely. But you will never get a motor car driver to obey all these rules and regulations until you have prosecuted and convicted in a great number of cases, and, if I may, I would add that you will never decrease the number of deaths and accidents until you teach the motor driver what I call manners—that is, consideration for others, consideration of the strong for the weak, consideration for the old and infirm, consideration for the ordinary man. When they see a person crossing the road they like to go as near as possible to him; they like to see him skip the last two or three yards of the road. Those are, the people who accuse me of introducing this Amendment because I wish to give the traffic more chance of running over people.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out subsection (10) and insert:
"(10) This section, in its application to the London Traffic Area constituted under the London Traffic Act, 1924, shall have effect subject to such adaptations as may be specified in an order made by the Minister.
Any order made for the purposes of this subsection may be varied by a subsequent order and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not have effect until it has lain upon the Table of each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-eight days during which the House has sat, and if ether House during that period presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the order may be annulled, the order shall not come into force, but without prejudice to the making of a new order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is largely complementary to the Amendment already accepted by this House in subsection (4) of this clause

1015
which in certain circumstances gives the Minister power to require a local authority to submit a scheme. This Amendment will enable the Minister, if necessary, to exercise a like power in the case of authorities within the London Traffic Area. I can assure the House that no action in this respect would be taken without consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (10) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Provisions as to reflectors on bicycles, etc.]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause standing on the Paper in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("of such dimensions and in such position as may be specified in") and insert ("in accordance with").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to insert after Clause 21:
"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."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment in Committee and I am afraid I did not give the noble Earl much time in which to consider it. He was good enough to say that if I put it down on the Report stage he might be able to give me a definite answer. Since then he has been good enough to write me fully on the subject and I understand that the Minister of Transport has considerable sympathy with my Amendment but he refers me to Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That section says:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation … of; ridden horses and driven live stock adequate grass or other margins by the side of the roads under their control."
If the county councils would only obey the law as it stands in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and make these verges or
1016
bridle paths suitable for people riding horses or driving cattle, there would be no need for me to move this Amendment, but I think nearly all noble Lords must know that many county councils, far from making road verges suitable for riding, take away all the verge that there is, and not satisfied with taking away the verge, they take away the bank as well.
Therefore I venture to ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible to tighten up the law in some way so that county councils would be obliged to carry out the law as it now is? I think it really is in the interests of motorists as well as in the interests of riders that there should be a suitable verge for riding upon. I am sure any noble Lord will agree with me that a shying horse on a slippery road is a source of danger, not only to the rider, but also to motorists. Therefore it is in the interests of motorists quite as much as in the interests of riders that these verges should be made. Where it is absolutely impossible to make a verge—for instance, in a built-up area—I suggest that it ought to be the duty of the highway authority to provide a few feet of rough roadway so that horses could be led or ridden along it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Powis.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, personally I have very great sympathy with this Amendment and I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend in the latter part of his speech, when he regretted that so little attention has been paid by local authorities, at any rate in some parts of the country, to the clear indication of the desire of Parliament expressed in Section 58 of the Act of 1930. But I should rather like to ask my noble friend whether he is quite satisfied that his Amendment would really improve matters in any way? I am rather afraid that it would not, but that it would still leave absolutely uncontrolled the discretion of the local authority. After our experience of the last four years I think we ought to have some means of coercing local authorities when they do not do their duty, and I have proposed three Amendments later in the Bill which, if the Government can see their way to

1017
accept them or at any rate two of them, I hope will be effective to put some amount of pressure upon local authorities in that direction.
In connection with this particular clause I would suggest to my noble friend that really the words which make the existing section of the 1930 Act so feeble are the words "wherever they shall deem it necessary." It leaves it absolutely to the local authority to say "We do not deem it necessary," and there is an end of it. If it read: "wherever it is necessary," then in a proper case you could take whatever proceedings were open to you to compel the local authority to do their duty, if you could prove that it really was necessary or desirable that such a thing should be done. I quite agree that even then your difficulties would be very considerable, but you would be in a rather better position. If my noble friend's Amendment were adopted I am afraid it would leave things exactly where they are. It would only say once again that in particular cases the principle which was laid down in 1930 ought to be considered. Well, that will not help you; they will say: "We have considered it and we do not think that it applies to this particular case." I hope my noble friend will wait and support me when we come to a later part of the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am prepared to support this Amendment in its present form, but at the same time I entirely agree with the noble Viscount who has just addressed the House, and I hope that it may be strengthened so as to make it more compulsory on local authorities. I have witnessed many serious accidents in which not only have horses lost their lives by falling upon slippery roads but men riding horses on roads where there has been no verge have been injured. It is perfectly true that after a time horses do get more accustomed to these roads, but at the same time there are periods when the roads, owing to a little rain having fallen, or occasionally owing to a certain amount of mud being on their surface, are so dangerous that it is almost impossible for either horses or cattle to remain upon their legs, and danger arises not only to the animals and to the people who are
1018
riding horses but also to the motorists who may be passing at the same time.
I have noticed that in the development of these roads three things very often occur in the vicinity: golf courses, swimming pools and riding schools are established. I know one or two of these main roads running out of London where there are several riding schools, and where children have to ride their ponies into those riding schools in order to be taught how to ride, and there are no proper verges for the horses or ponies to pass along. I believe that it is in the interests of the general public that there should be these verges where possible, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the object of the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I am very much impressed by what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said, but I do not think that his Amendment will really meet the purpose of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment at present under discussion. He speaks only of footpaths.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not the one to which I have referred. It is rather inconvenient for us to discuss that Amendment before we come to it, but it is intended to apply both to footpaths and to grass verges.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Does the noble Viscount mean the Amendment at the bottom of page 11 of the Marshalled List of Amendments?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, the Amendment which seeks to strike out of Section 58 of the 1930 Act the words "they shall deem it."
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Does a riding verge come into that?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have no right to speak, I know, and I can only do it by leave of your Lordships, but as my noble friend has asked me the question, perhaps I may be allowed to answer it. Section 58 of the Act of 1930 reads as follows:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever

1019
they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot pasesngers"
and so on. Then the section says later on:
" … and to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable …"
It may be necessary to strike out those words too. That is all. You will have to strike them out twice instead of once as I proposed.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am satisfied now.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think I made it quite clear during the Committee stage that the Government were certainly sympathetic to this Amendment. I think, however, that there is some misunderstanding with regard to it, as it has been said by several speakers this evening that if the wording of this clause is left as it stands at present, it still leaves complete discretion to the highway authority as to whether any action is to be taken or not. That really is not the case, and I intend to deal with that point a little later. As the noble Earl asked me to make further inquiries into this matter between the Committee stage and Report stage I have naturally done so, and I should like to answer him somewhat fully.
I have already communicated with the noble Earl and have sent him an extract from the "Notes on the Lay-out and Construction of Roads" issued by the Ministry to all highway authorities, which runs as follows:
"The Minister specially desires that every care shall be taken not merely to safeguard existing amenities but to add to them.… Verges, as well as the slopes of cuttings and embankments (where this is practicable) should be soiled and seeded, or in appropriate cases, turfed or planted with shrubs. The grass verges should be kept clear and grips avoided, in order that they may serve as a track for horsemen."
In a circular on "Public Safety" issued to all highway authorities in February of this year, to which a very wide publicity has since been given, special attention is drawn to the fact that:
"It is the duty of a highway authority, as declared by Parliament in Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to provide, wherever they deem it necessary or desirable to do so, for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers, proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control, and in similar circumstances
1020
adequate grass or other margins for ridden horses and driven livestock.…
In resurfacing the carriage-ways of narrow country roads, there is a tendency to encroach little by little upon the grass verge or footway, until no refuge is left for the pedestrian. Highway authorities are asked to avoid this undesirable practice, which assumes that the increasing demands of vehicular traffic must be met by jeopardising the safety of other road, users. Operations of this character cannot be regarded as eligible for Road Fund grant, unless adequate alternative provision is made, e.g., by the formation of a footpath on the other side of the hedge."
The Minister's staff of road engineers in different parts of the country are in constant touch with all the highway authorities; and great importance is attached to their advice in considering whether or not any highway work shall be allowed to rank for a grant from the Road Fund. Whenever any work is proposed by way of construction of a new main road or of widening an existing one, this question of verges is bound to arise, especially in view of the stress laid in the last quoted circular upon the ineligibility for Road Fund grant of work which does not comply with the Minister's requirements. When we are dealing with closely built industrial areas, it is unfortunately often impossible to require any grass verge; and the noble Earl moving the Amendment has recognised this by inserting the words "where possible" in his draft clause. The Minister is whole-heartedly in sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, and he hopes that the attention which has been drawn by this House to the question will help towards fostering a sound public opinion in this important matter.
There is one other aspect of the position which I would like to deal with and which has been stressed this evening. At present complete discretion rests with the local authorities and your Lordships have indicated that you thought that that might be dealt with by removing certain words in this particular clause. Naturally, there are many of your Lordships in this House who are intimately connected with local affairs and who are members of county councils and can speak with greater knowledge on this particular point, but I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see a tendency to take the control of the highways out of the hands of the highway authorities and con-

1021
centrate it in the hands of the Ministry. There is in fact close co-operation on all sides and through the whole country between the Minister's officials and the officials of the highway authorities, and as I have said the advice of the Minister's divisional road engineers has very great weight indeed in the final settlement of any road scheme which has to be approved for grant out of the Road Fund. In the last resort the power of the purse is naturally an important factor in this matter, but in the past, at any rate, any suggestion for a dictatorship or for the formation of a despotism of this kind has not found favour in your Lordships' House. I do not think the effect of this Amendment, if passed, would be material, and I hope in the circumstances, and after the explanation I have given, the noble Earl will not press it.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the explanation he has given. I think it must be very satisfactory to your Lordships to realise that the Minister is putting pressure on the county councils, which I think is very necessary in some cases. There is no pressure like pecuniary pressure, because if the grant towards a road is not made I do not think there is much fear of the county council breaking the spirit of the Act. I should like to say that in moving this Amendment I had no wish whatever to take the control of the roads out of the hands of the local authorities and put it entirely in the hands of the Minister, nor do I think that any noble Lord who has spoken intended that. All we wanted was what the noble Earl has said the Minister has undertaken to do—namely, to bring pressure to bear upon the county councils to obey the law. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Power of county councils to light roads]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there are drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 2, after ("of") insert ("non county boroughs and")
Page 21, line 21, after ("of") insert ("non county boroughs and").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25:
Arrangements between members of societies for carriage in motor vehicles.
25. Where, under a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of a society on the one hand and the society or another member thereof on the other hand, a person is carried as a passenger in a motor vehicle in such circumstances that he would be deemed to be carried for hire or reward if the transaction were effected otherwise than as aforesaid, then, notwithstanding any rule of law, he shall for the purposes of the principal Act and of this Act be deemed to be carried for hire or reward.
In this section the expression "society" means any association of persons whether incorporated or not.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that this section shall not apply to any society or club composed exclusively of workpeople employed by the same employer which has been in existence for a period of not less than two years prior to the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that I know of certain factories the workers employed in which have formed themselves into a club for the purpose of providing themselves with transport to and from their work. It takes them about an hour each way in the transport with which they have provided themselves. They write in these terms:
"We are concerned with the hardship which the passage into law of this clause would inevitably inflict on a body of some 600 workmen who have for some years been running their own transport without censure or criticism from the responsible road transport authorities.
We feel very strongly indeed that steps should be taken to exempt from the operation of this clause workmen's clubs which have already been in operation for a period of two years. We think there should be an amendment exempting such workmen's clubs as have been in existence for two years."
This point was raised in Standing Committee C of the Commons. Reference was then made to clubs formed in Yorkshire, providing transport in the mining districts, and it was said that the Traffic Commissioner for the area had definitely ruled that the vehicles run by these clubs need not have a road service licence. A different view seems to have been taken by the South Eastern Traffic Commissioner of a scheme of transport for the men of the Kentish coalfields. Therefore there is a case for the Government

1023
to answer with reference to this particular point. Naturally, one does not want to provide loopholes which might start a serious leak in other Acts of Parliament, and one does not want to provide wholesale means whereby people may evade the law, but it seemed to me that where boná fide workmen's clubs have been in existence for two years, and they have provided themselves with transport without censure or criticism from the Transport authorities, in such case they might be exempt from the operation of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 2, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I do not quite realise the object that the noble Earl has in view. Clause 25 is designed to prevent the continued use on the road of passenger-carrying vehicles which cannot obtain the certificate of fitness required under the 1930 Act. The company to which the noble Earl referred has written officially to the Minister explaining that the vehicles they use for this purpose could not, without very heavy expense, be brought up to that standard. The standards required for the certificate of fitness were determined in close cooperation with national associations representative of the manufacturers, the operating companies and labour; and they embody what is generally agreed to represent reasonable minimum requirements from the safety standpoint. The Minister does not feel that he is able to ask this House to take the responsibility of sanctioning exceptionally a departure from the safety standard, merely on the ground that the passengers carried in the vehicles are all in the Same employment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl noted that I pointed out the difference in rulings between the Traffic Commissioners in various districts. The effect of the noble Earl's reply may, of course, be somewhat serious for the workpeople employed. It is simply the case of a club, and these vehicles are run more or less as private vehicles.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28:
Interpretation of certain provisions of s. 90 of the principal Act.
28. For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on a local
1024
authority by subsections (2) and (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act (which relate to the appointment of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles and confer amongst other powers a power to make certain charges) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on a local authority by Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which relates to the provision of parking places and confers amongst other powers a power to make regulations as to certain charges) and that the local authority shall have power to make reasonable charges for the use of a parking place, not being part of a street, as a station for public service vehicles in addition to the charges for accommodation referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out all words after "charges", where that word secondly occurs, and insert:
"(2) A local authority shall have power to make charges for the use of a parking place, not being part of a street, as a station for public service vehicles.
The charger to be made under this subsection as respects any vehicles shall be such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the local authority, so, however, that if the public service vehicle licence holder in respect of any vehicles using the parking place as a station considers that the charges fixed are unreasonable, then, in default of agreement between the licence holder and the local authority for a reduction thereof, the charges in respect of those vehicles shall be such as may be determined by the Minister."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recall that at the Committee stage three Amendments to this clause stood on the Order Paper. Two dealt with the distinction between parking places on, or off, the street; and, with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who had moved the clause, words were inserted by your Lordships to meet this point. A third Amendment, to leave out part of the clause, stood in the name of Lord Mount Temple, but the noble Lord did not press it; and I fear that, from the brief statement which he made, I did not fully apprehend what was in the minds of those on whose behalf he spoke. Fortunately, I need not trouble your Lordships at this stage of the Bill with details of the possible interpretations which, but for this clause, might in certain quarters have been placed upon a number of inter-related statutory provisions. Since Thursday last there have been consultations between the Minister and representatives both of the local

1025
authorities and of the operators of public service vehicles, the result of which consultations is the Amendment which I now move. The provision which it makes for appeal to the Minister in the event of a dispute arising will, I am assured, go very far towards meeting the wishes of those on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has interested himself in this matter, and I do not think that the local authorities will demur to such a provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("charges") to the end of line 10 and insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 34:
As to evidence of exceeding a speed limit.
".A person charged with exceeding the maximum speed permitted by Section one of this Act or by the First Schedule to this Act or by an Order made in pursuance of Section forty-six of the principal Act shall not be convicted on the evidence of the driver of a vehicle as to the rate of speed observed by means of a speedometer unless such evidence is corroborated by the evidence of some other person."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point in this new clause is that there ought not to be a conviction for exceeding the speed limit on the sole evidence of a police constable who is attempting to watch a speedometer while driving behind the vehicle alleged to be exceeding the speed limit. I am sure those of your Lordships who drive motor cars will agree that it is quite impossible for a policeman to drive his car properly and with due regard to public safety, as he must, and at the same time record and look at the moving hand of the speedometer on his dashboard. The present law on the subject is contained in Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1930, which provides that there shall be no conviction solely on the evidence of one witness that in his opinion the person charged was driving at a greater speed than the maximum allowed. We want to make quite, certain that convictions obtained under this Bill are fair and just, and I feel therefore that the practice of the Act of 1930 should be continued in the present Bill.
It has been held that corroboration of the opinion of a witness may be furnished
1026
by a speedometer reading. This would be a very dangerous practice if the policeman attempted to drive in pursuit and to keep his eye on the speedometer at the same time. It would, in fact, be absolutely impossible to do so. This point was raised in another place and the Minister then promised to consider the matter. He remarked:
"I am not wholly happy on the point, and I am certainly not quite happy as to the position under any speed limit which is imposed under Section 46 of the 1930 Act."
This clause will also cure a defect in the present law relating to a local speed limit imposed under Section 46 of the Act of 1930. The provision of Section 10 (3), which I have referred to, does not apply in the case of a prosecution for exceeding a speed limit fixed by order under Section 46, and I contend that the magistrates can if they think fit under such an order convict on the opinion of a single constable without any corroboration.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think there must be some slight misunderstanding about this. I am informed that on the Report stage in another place the honourable Member for Clitheroe asked
"if the Minister could undertake that two people should be there; although one was driving the other could be watching the speedometer."
Mr. Stanley replied:
"I cannot give the honourable and gallant Member an undertaking, but I will look into the point."
He referred to an assurance which he had received from the Secretary of State that it would not be common for police prosecution to be based on a detection in which only one officer was driving behind the alleged offender. Since that date a further assurance has been given that the Metropolitan Police do not contemplate any departure from the normal practice under which the mobile police work in pairs on this class of duty. At the same time it cannot be guaranteed that this will be possible in absolutely every case throughout the country. The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved on this occasion differs somewhat from a similar Amendment that he

1027
moved during the Committee stage, the difference being that this Amendment only refers to offences alleged to have occurred in built-up areas, whereas the Amendment put down during the Committee stage referred to offences occurring on all the roads of the country. Therefore, clearly this Amendment does not any longer deal with the case of a solo motor cyclist policeman following a motor coach or commercial vehicle over a stretch of ten miles in the open country.
This House has, however, already accepted provisions which secure a desirable uniformity of treatment, as regards evidence, liability to endorsement of licence, and penalties, in the case of all offences against a speed limit, whether the limit is a general one imposed by the First Schedule or is the limit under Clause 1 of the Bill, or a local limit imposed under a special order such as the Oxford Order. I really think it would be inconsistent at this stage to go back on this very necessary work of coordination and make different requirements as to offences in different classes of cases. In effect, the noble Earl's Amendment says that if a case of this kind occurs in the open country corroboration of a second person is not necessary, but where an offence occurs in a built-up area corroboration is necessary from a second person in the vehicle which is following the offender's vehicle. I honestly cannot believe that the difficulties are as great as the noble Earl suggests in a matter of this kind, and I cannot believe that occasions do not occur, and occur fairly frequently, where it would be absolutely safe for a single solo motor cyclist policeman to follow a car which was exceeding the speed limit in a built-up area, without in any way endangering the public safety. After all, the real importance lies in the fact that everything should be done to make these provisions enforcible as easily as possible. Emphasis has been laid by speakers throughout the whole course of these debates on the vital necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Bill, and I therefore maintain that any unnecessary difficulties which are put in the way of making it possible for the police to bring offenders to justice should be avoided. I have given an assurance to the noble Earl that, generally speaking, it would be the common practice, as it has been in the past, for the police to
1028
depend upon the evidence of two men together, but at the same time I am not prepared to accept this Amendment which would make it impossible for any offender to be convicted in any circumstances on the evidence of a single policeman.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I cannot help being astounded at the reply we have just heard. I do not know whether the noble Earl drives his own motor car or whether he has ever ridden a motor cycle, but I say quite definitely and positively that to drive a motor car or a motor cycle behind a vehicle at exactly the same speed as that vehicle so that you are able to say the speed which it is doing cannot be done unless your eyes are kept on the speedometer. It is most difficult to keep up exactly the same speed as another vehicle, whether it is doing thirty miles an hour or thirty-five miles an hour. If you have to go on looking at your speedometer and asking yourself: "What am I doing now?" you are going to be absolutely unable to swear, as you will have to swear in a court of law, that that vehicle was doing a certain speed. It demands positively that one man shall watch the speedometer and another man judge the distance and keep immediately behind the other vehicle. During last week-end out of sheer amusement, after reading this provision, I had a little bit of fun trying to do this, and I came to the conclusion that I was not only unable to do it but that I was a positive danger. If we were going anything up to twenty miles an hour then the chances of my bumping the vehicle in front in the event of a sudden stop were such that I could not take my eyes off the vehicle to observe anything else, and if we were going faster than that I was too busy looking where I was going to have any time to spare to look at my speedometer.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am sorry indeed to hear the reply of the Minister to this Amendment. I can assure the noble Earl that I speak with a certain amount of personal experience, and I endorse every word that has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is a practical impossibility accurately to observe the movement of a handless speedometer and watch the road at the same time. The driver of a police motor cycle or the driver of a police car is just as much amenable to the law of the land,

1029
luckily, as anyone else. Police drivers have not shown themselves too expert in the handling of their vehicles on the road. There have been many complaints of the handling of police cars, and a considerable number of accidents have unfortunately occurred in connection with their use. I am glad to bear that no change is contemplated in the practice of the Metropolitan Police, and if we were only concerned with the Metropolitan Police probably all would be well; but we are not. This Bill is going to operate all over the country, and I feel we are dealing here with a matter of considerable substance.
I do not in any way desire to see the measure weakened; not in the least. I want to see convictions properly obtained, and I want to see convictions that mean something. The penalties imposed under this Bill are very stringent indeed, and I am perfectly certain your Lordships do not want to see people's livelihood taken away by evidence upon which any
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Assessors on the hearing of prosecutions for motor vehicle offences.
".Where in any case a person is charged with an offence of driving a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the principal Act or this Act the court shall, if application for the purpose is duly made by or on behalf of the defendant, try the case with the assistance of two assessors having special knowledge and experience of the driving of motor vehicles to be appointed out of a list of persons for the time being approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs."
doubt can arise. I do not believe you will get convictions before the courts in any serious case if you are going to rely on the evidence of one man alone. To get any court to convict in a serious case—and it is the serious cases we want to deal with—you will have to have the evidence of two men at least. I am very sorry to hear the Minister's reply, and I regret I shall have to ask the House to divide.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, under the Amendment, as proposed, supposing evidence was given of this kind by a police officer: "I was following the car. I looked at my speedometer. I found it registered seventy miles an hour, and I ask for a conviction"—under this Amendment it would not be possible to convict.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 6; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Marley, L.

Fairfax a Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Knutsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Tredegar, V.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Feversham, E.

Bayford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rockley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sanderson, L.

Onslow, E.

Denman, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Plymouth, E.

Dickinson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Powis, E.

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

Gainford, L.

Templemore, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is, I think, obvious. It is intended to provide for cases where the courts have nobody who really knows much about motor vehicles or who can be described as a motor expert on the bench. In such cases I think that, having regard to the very serious charges which may be brought under the Bill, it is desirable that the bench should have assistance from people who are competent to assist. In other countries they have special courts. Your Lordships are well aware of the practice existing, I believe, in America and many other countries. There are special traffic courts

1031
there to consider offences against their motor laws, and I am personally of opinion that something of the sort would be very desirable here. At the same time it would probably involve a very considerable change in our legal procedure, and that is obviously a thing which a layman like myself would have to be very careful about before doing anything about it.
With regard to providing assessors for the assistance of courts of summary jurisdiction, however, there is, I think, a certain analogy to be found perhaps in the Mercantile Marine Acts. I do not pretend to be very closely acquainted with those Acts, though I have actually studied the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in this connection. At the same time I think it is very essential that we should have people of expert knowledge on the tribunal. There is one other point which I have already referred to this afternoon, and that is with regard to the appeal in the case where a man is tested for a licence and the licence is refused. In that case, also, I think it is very desirable that the court should have expert assistance at its command in order to decide the case before it. With those few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should have been interested to hear any noble and learned Lord express an opinion upon this matter. This clause in effect proposes to set up special tribunals for hearing motor cases—that is really what it means. I know the idea of special tribunals has been discussed both here and, I think, in another place, but I venture to say that to introduce a proposal which involves a fundamental principle and which, as well, goes contrary to our legal procedure, on the Report stage in the Second House is perhaps rather a drastic action to take. But I will attempt to deal with what the noble Lord has said as briefly as I can.
The noble Earl himself, both during the debate on the Second Reading and during the consideration of Lord Merrivale's new clause in Committee, said that some form of special court should be set up to deal with all motoring cases, and that they should be constituted on the lines of the
1032
Admiralty Court dealing with accidents at sea. I do not quite know what the noble Earl has in mind, whether he intends that the assessors should take part in the adjudication in this case, or whether they should merely act as expert advisers to the court. I think that the first alternative—namely, that they should take part in the adjudication—would be very undesirable indeed from many points of view. As a matter of fact the clause provides that they must be appointed on the application of the defendant, and therefore the defendant might be able to regulate the constitution of the court, but no doubt the noble Earl probably has the second alternative in mind.
EARL HOWE: I meant the second alternative.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thought that would probably be the case. Even then that would introduce an altogether new principle in the hearing of our criminal cases, and I can see no valid reason why this should be introduced in motor cases in particular. The appointment of independent experts to assist the court in civil cases—that is, nautical assessors in the case of collisions at sea—affords no precedent for this. There the court is called upon to assess the relative liability of the parties, and in doing so may have to weigh highly technical considerations in a field of which the court has no expert knowledge. Even so, the decision both of fact and law is that of the Judge alone, who is not bound to follow the opinion of the assessors, but must exercise his own judgment. If it were alleged that, arising out of a collision at sea, a criminal offence such as that of manslaughter had been committed within the jurisdiction, the trial of that offence would be before a criminal court just as in the case of any other criminal offence, and there would be no question of the appointment of assessors. The functions of a criminal court—whether a court of summary jurisdiction or a superior court—are wholly different from those of a civil court. The criminal court has not to assess relative liability, but to decide, "yes" or "no," whether an offence has been proved. The decision may sometimes involve the consideration of expert evidence in an unfamiliar field, for instance, medical evidence, but it has

1033
never been suggested that a medical assessor should be appointed to assist the court.
In the case of motoring offences the field in which the proposed assessors are to help is not unfamiliar. There may sometimes be a court composed of justices who are not themselves motorists, and they may not be well informed on the finer points of driving. But that is no reason for adopting a fundamental change in criminal procedure, nor for compelling every court, if a defendant so decides, to appoint persons "having special knowledge and experience of driving" to assist in their deliberations. For these reasons I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 35 [Light signals presumption of compliance with statutory requirements]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("in accordance with the provisions of Section forty-eight of the principal Act")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provisions respecting sale, of certain motor vehicles or trailers]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really consequential on previous Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 37.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Provisions respecting alteration of certain motor vehicles or trailers]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 38. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 38.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
1034
"Subsections (5) and (6) of Section six shall have effect as if for the words 'a court of summary jurisdiction' and the words 'the court' wherever they occur, there were substituted the words 'the Sheriff,' and as if for the words 'acting for the petty sessional division in which' there were substituted the words 'within whose jurisdiction.'"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is also a drafting Amendment to be made to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 6, at end insert ("and the expression 'manslaughter' shall mean culpable homicide").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Consequential and Minor Amendments.
Enactment to be amended.—Amendment.
The principal Act.
Section fifty-seven—
In subsection (2), after the words "foot passengers" there shall be inserted the words "and the erection, maintenance, alteration, and removal of traffic signs".
In subsection (3), after the word "erection" there shall be inserted the words "provision, maintenance, or operation."
In subsection (5), for the words "and (4)", there shall be substituted the words "(4) and (4a)".
Section one hundred and twenty-one—
In subsection (2), after the words "while being driven as aforesaid", there shall be inserted the words "or in relation to motor vehicles used for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894"; and the reference to the provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall be construed as if it included a reference to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords the first Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 6, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 10.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, after "subsection (2)", to insert "after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid this Amendment seems a little complicated, but if your Lordships have before you the Road Traffic Act of 1930 you will find it is comparatively simple. I think I can explain it without going too much into technicalities if I read the subsection of the Act of 1930 which I propose to amend. Subsection (2) of Section 57 of the Act of 1930 reads as follows:
"The expression 'improvement of roads' in the said Part II shall include the following works, that is to say, the erection, lighting, maintenance, alteration and removal of places of refuge in roads, and the construction, lighting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of subways under roads for the use of foot passengers, and advances may he made out of the Road Fund towards the costs incurred by the council of an urban district in connection with the execution of any such works in a county road."
It may be that in my Amendment I have not gone far enough, but my object is to enable the Ministry to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and grass verges.
I desire to alter the form of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper by including the words "or grass verges." At present the Ministry have power to subscribe out of the Road Fund to a great many things, but as far as I can make out they have no power to subscribe to the cost of footpaths or grass verges. That seems to me to be quite wrong. This Amendment deals with part of the footpath grievance, and it really is a serious grievance, as I think the noble Earl will probably agree, in many parts of the country. A local authority goes to great expense in improving a road. In a particular case which came under my personal observation they spent thousands of pounds upon the road. The result often is to extend the carriage-way to the very edge of what used to be the whole width of the road and there is no space left for the use of pedestrians or horses. That is really a very serious grievance. In the
1036
particular case to which I refer I wrote to the local authority and asked them to change their plans, but they said the cost would be too much, or something of that kind.
Of course, the cost of leaving some kind of footpath either adjoining the road or on the other side of the hedge would be quite inconsiderable compared with the total cost of the work. I think that that ought to be insisted upon. I do not want to say anything offensive about the officials of local authorities, who are admirable people, but they see the traffic question entirely from the point of view of motor drivers. They go about in motor cars—they must do so, or they could not do their work—and they do not see the point of view of foot passengers. In this particular case to which I refer the main road goes from a little hamlet two miles to the larger village where the schools are situated. Therefore the schoolchildren have to go along this road twice a day. I think that is a terrible danger and it must cause great anxiety to the parents and guardians of the children. If a child suffers the slightest absence of mind or at any moment steps a little to the right, that child may be in very serious danger. I beg my noble friend to consider this very carefully. It may be that I have not got the Amendment drafted quite right, but I do urge that power should be given to subscribe from the Road Fund for the construction of footpaths.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 12, after ("(2)") insert ("after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have very great sympathy with the object of the Amendment but I am afraid I am not very sanguine with regard to the object he has in mind. I have seen adequate and proper footpaths provided and I have seen them absolutely ignored by pedestrians. If footpaths are provided I think the Minister ought to do something to ensure that they are used by pedestrians. There is another point which was not touched on by the noble Viscount, and that is the question of the surfacing of footpaths. In many places where there are footpaths the surface leaves a great deal to be desired,

1037
and you really cannot blame the pedestrian if he fails to use the paths under those conditions. Either they have large puddles in them when it is wet or they are very rough and generally unsuitable for foot passenger traffic. If this Amendment is accepted and it leads to an extension of the construction of footpaths, I hope that the Ministry will be able to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities with regard to the kind of footpath provided.
May I put another point? I have very great sympathy with the Amendment which was moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Powis, in the interests of horse traffic. I quite agree with what he said. I do not think that half enough attention has been paid by highway authorities to the extraordinarily slippery surfaces of our highways. They affect all forms of traffic. The cyclist, the horse user and the motor car user are all affected. I feel that very much might be done, could be done, and should be done by local authorities to improve the surfaces which they put down on our roads. I have said that I consider that the surfaces are often little better than buttered slides, and it is perfectly true. I am perfectly certain that in many cases accidents occur because of these road surfaces; and we are all interested in the saving of life. While we are on the subject of what might be done with the edges of the roads, what about special tracks for cyclists? You find them in other countries. In fact I do not know how the traffic would go on without them in some countries like Holland, where half the population, or the entire population, seems to live on bicycles. I really do feel that this Amendment is one which should receive our support in the interests of public safety, and that is the reason why I desire to support the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, and that the Minister already has the powers which the noble Viscount desires him to possess. Section 57 (2) of the 1930 Act, which the noble Viscount quoted, has as its object to resolve any doubts that may exist as to whether some types of work come under the general term "improvement of roads." I am advised that no one has ever cast any doubt upon the
1038
idea that the provision of footpaths comes within "improvement of roads," and for that reason it is perfectly clear that the Minister now has powers to make grants for the improvement of roads which, amongst other things, includes the provision of footpaths and grass verges as well.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask my noble friend if he can tell me whether, apart from some big works to a road, the Ministry have ever been asked by a local authority to subscribe from the Road Fund in order to assist in the construction of a footpath by an existing road? That is the real point. It was thought necessary to set out in Section 57 of the 1930 Act a whole lot of works as to which special words had to be inserted in order to give the Minister power to subscribe to them—things like subways; a whole list of them is set out. What struck me in reading the section was: Why was it necessary to do that, and not necessary to insert special words to enable the Minister to subscribe to footpaths? I do not know whether my noble friend could help me about that; but I think that something ought to be done.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to give my noble friend an answer specifically to the question he has asked, whether application has been made for a grant from the Road Fund for the making of a footpath alone irrespective of the improvement of a road generally, but as I am advised, it is perfectly within the powers of the Minister to make grants for footpaths just as for those other purposes enumerated in Section 57 (2) of the main Act.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will consider this a little further. As a matter of construction I should myself have very great doubt whether "improvement of roads necessarily included the provision of footpaths, and my noble and learned friend Lord Cecil will share that doubt. I cannot help thinking that anybody with any practical experience of the administration of the law would agree that such a doubt exists. Now what the noble Earl has told the House is that the intention of the Legislature is that the provision of footpaths shall be included. If that is so, all that will be done by accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment is to add words

1039
which upon some view as to the construction of the existing law would be redundant. It is a risk that is very well worth running to my mind, and I hope that the noble Viscount will press his Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what he will lose by accepting this Amendment. If he is right in his construction it will do no harm; if he is wrong a deficiency in the law will be supplied. From the merely Parliamentary point of view, this Bill has to go to another place, so far as Amendments inserted in your Lordships' House are concerned. So far as a legal question is involved, the noble Earl can turn up the matter between now and the consideration of our Amendments in another place. In the circumstances, rather than leave the House and the public in the doubt which has been expressed, surely he can make the position clear, and if he finds on further consideration and legal advice that this is unnecessary the matter can be put right at the last stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in the reference to subsection (3) of Section 57 of the principal Act, to leave out "maintenance or operation" and insert "or maintenance." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the one following it, to insert a proviso as to the cost of operating weighbridges, are moved in the interests of commercial motor and road haulage concerns. The Act of 1930 authorised a grant for the erection of weighbridges, but by this Bill it is proposed to go further. It is proposed that Road Fund money shall be devoted to the maintenance and operation of weighbridges. The interests affected consider that it is absolutely unnecessary. It is, I believe, usual to charge a fee of about a shilling for the use of a weighbridge, and most of the weighbridges, at any rate the ones which are in the more extensively used areas, pay for their own maintenance and upkeep. It is considered to be quite unnecessary that Road Fund money should be expended for this purpose. It is thought, at any rate, by those for whom I speak, that if extra money is required it should be provided, as suggested in my Amendment, by the local authorities. In most cases these weighbridges are self-
1040
supporting, and therefore those for whom I speak have taken the view they have.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 19, leave out ("maintenance or operation") and insert ("or maintenance").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I think this proposal will meet with the most strenuous opposition from the local authorities. It is not true to say that in every case the weighbridge pays its own way.
EARL HOWE: I said in most cases.
LORD BAYFORD: It does not always, and to throw the expense upon the local authorities would be very much resented by those authorities.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps I might explain the matter a little further. Section 57 of the principal Act, as amended by the Third Schedule, will read:
"Advances may be made out of the Road Fund towards the expenses incurred by any highway authority in the erection, provision, maintenance or operation of weighbridges or other machines for weighing vehicles …."
The noble Earl proposes to omit the word "operation", and in his second Amendment proposes that "as far as practicable" the cost of operating the weighbridges shall be met out of charges made for their use. It is important to remember that the section of the principal Act is an enabling provision only. It empowers, but does not require, the Minister to make grants for weighbridges. Weighbridges to-day are of two kinds—fixed and portable. With regard to fixed weighbridges, the Minister has, in the past, under the powers granted by the principal Act, made grants out of the Road Fund towards the initial provision of fixed weighbridges. Local authorities have been responsible for their upkeep, towards which they presumably have applied the sums paid by persons wishing to have their goods weighed. These public weighbridges have been largely used for purposes not connected in any way with the detection of offences.
The portable weighbridge is a modern development and is capable of being carried in a light car or indeed in the sidecar of a motor cycle. It is used primarily for the purpose of securing enforcement of regulations, and fines imposed on con-

1041
viction inure ultimately to the Road Fund. The highway authorities appear, therefore, to be justified in asking for some contribution from the Road Fund towards the maintenance and operation of these weighbridges. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, to insert:
"after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections:
'(6) No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair or alteration of any road, or any part thereof, unless provision is made by the authority responsible therefor for a footpath by the side of or near such road, or by the side of or near such part thereof for the use of foot passengers unless the Minister gives a certificate that he is satisfied that in the interests of the safety of the public such a footpath is unnecessary.
(7) All such certificates shall be laid before Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships have been good enough to accept the suggestion that the Road Fund shall be able to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and verges. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to go one step further, and that we ought to say that before assisting any repairs to roads from the Road Fund there should be an inquiry by the Ministry as to whether it is desirable that there should be a footpath provided as part of this improvement. I raised this point four years ago, and the representative of the Government then, the late Earl Russell, certainly gave me to understand—but I must have misunderstood him, because I cannot find anything in the OFFICIAL REPORT to justify my understanding—that in practice the Ministry were in the habit of insisting on footpaths wherever they subscribed to any considerable change in the roads.
That certainly does not appear to be the case in the particular instance to which I have already referred. They certainly did not do it in that case, and if they do it at all they do it very spasmodically. It is true that within five miles from that particular road there is another road, on which there is much less traffic, where considerable alterations have been made, and a footpath, four feet wide, provided on each side of the
1042
road for about a quarter of a mile, leading from nowhere to nowhere. Beyond that there is no footpath at either end. Of course that by itself is perfectly useless, but I am suggesting that with the powers which I am proposing it would have been possible for the Ministry to have made a bargain and said: "We will assist you in those costly changes"—as they must have been—"but you must provide, not a footpath on either side, but a good serviceable footpath which shall go right through to the next footpath, which would make a very valuable addition and be of service to the public."
I suggest that before making any grant from the Road Fund the Ministry shall enquire as a matter of routine whether it is necessary to have a footpath, and unless they are satisfied it is not necessary, in the interest of public safety, that a footpath should be made, then they shall say that they cannot provide financial assistance until this point is met. This idea is approved even by the representatives of the Ministry of Transport, because I think I cited on the Second Reading a speech made by an engineer of the Ministry, in which he said in so many words that nothing was more necessary than the provision of footpaths, and that it was the greatest nonsense to say that footpaths were not used. On the contrary, when footpaths are provided experience in urban and semi-urban districts shows that the public soon begin to use them. I am satisfied from observation that many of the public do use the footpaths, and particularly children who have been instructed by their parents to use them. I hope my noble friend will accept this and the next Amendment, which would make an important and valuable change in the law as it is at the present moment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, at end, insert the said new subsections (6) and (7).—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, surely this is carrying a good idea a great deal too far. The words are:
"No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair, or alteration of any road or any part thereof, unless provision is made … for a footpath,"
and the Minister is to make an inquiry in every case. Where is he going to find

1043
the staff to make the tens of thousands of inquiries he would have to make all over the country? There are not a quarter of the roads in my part of the country which have footpaths, and every one of those roads, except the very minor roads, are eligible for grants. The county council has to repair all those roads every year. Before it puts its estimate through for the repair of each one of these roads, is a separate inquiry to be held by the Ministry of Transport in order to say whether it is necessary to have a footpath there or not? Surely the idea is absurd. I do not even want to argue the case whether more footpaths are desirable or necessary or not. From personal observation I know that there is great difficulty in getting people to use the footpaths when they are there. That may not be so in the highly sophisticated district in which my noble friend lives, but in our more remote portions of the West Country he must take my word that it is true. And, really, to give all this trouble and expense to the Ministry to hold these thousands of inquiries that would be necessary seems to me to be an absolutely impracticable proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I feel a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cecil in his desire to increase the number of footpaths because, like others of your Lordships, my experience is that when a footpath is there it is used. I was living down in Devonshire during the winter, and there was a road past my house, with a footpath along it. I do not think I ever saw people walking off the footpath. They always used the footpath, and very wisely so, because the place was infested with motor cars. May I ask my noble friend Lord Cecil whether his proposal is not this? The road authority goes to the Minister and asks for assistance from the Road Fund. The Minister then says: "Are you sure you do not want a footpath? Ought you not to have a footpath?" The road authority says, "No." The Minister says, "I will come and look at it," and afterwards he says he thinks there ought to be a footpath in order to safeguard the public. The local authority says: "No, we will not construct a footpath." Then the Minister says: "Very well then, you must pay for the road yourself." I think that is all there is in
1044
my noble friend's proposal, and I think it is a very reasonable proposal. I do not see why there should be so many inquiries. It seems to me that the Minister who knows his roads will say that a footpath ought to be there, and it is not probable that the local authority would say he does not know his business.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I hope the Ministry will accept this Amendment. The idea of having countless inquiries is clearly absurd, because in no cases are grants made without an inquiry to-day by the Minister. Therefore there is no question of any expense in the inquiry. We hear of little lengths of footpaths, 200 or 300 yards long, ending in nothing and beginning in nothing. How can people in the country be taught to use the footpaths when either the footpaths are not there to use, or they only proceed for a few hundred yards and then stop, so that people have to go into the road again? Of course, they are not learning to use the footpaths. The object of the Amendment is to secure that there shall be footpaths in all these country roads, and I hope the Minister will accept it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Lord Chairman was not quite right in his description of what occurs. It is perfectly true that, when a highway authority wants a grant from the Road Fund for improvements, the divisional road engineer must decide as the result of his experience whether it is an improvement which can be recognised as grant-earning or not. It is perfectly true he would go to the place and might say that it was a place where they ought to have a footpath, and the local authority might say: "No, we do not think so." Then the Minister would say: "Very well, we will give you nothing from the Road Fund." But that is not all that the noble Viscount's Amendment does. It goes somewhat further than that. It says that on every occasion when a grant is made, without a footpath being included in the improvement, a certificate would have to be given by the Minister to the effect that this was not an instance where it was necessary or desirable to have a footpath, and that all these certificates should be laid upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament. This is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Minister at the present

1045
moment. He can now refuse to make a grant out of the Road Fund in any instance where a highway authority refuses to make a footpath and he thinks it ought to be made; and he does do that. The only effect of this Amendment is to require these certificates to be laid on the Tables of the two Houses.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think that is so, and I cannot conceive that that is really necessary.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I very much hope the Government will reconsider their attitude. I really think my Amendment is more reasonable than they suggest. The point is this. Hero is this tremendous slaughter on the roads. Unquestionably if you could get the pedestrian to use footpaths in the country districts you would diminish that slaughter very greatly. There is not any doubt, I believe, in the mind of any member of the House as to this. The question is what can we do as a branch of the Legislature to forward that idea. One thing we can do is to call the attention of the Ministry of Transport to this matter and to ask them to consider carefully, not any question of expense or anything of that kind, but solely this question: Is a footpath necessary for the safety of the public? That is the one question they ought to consider under my Amendment. Everything else would be left to their discretion, as it is now, but they must be satisfied that a footpath is not necessary in the public interest and for public safety before they make their grant. I really do not think that is a very unreasonable request to make. The noble
Lord, Lord Bayford, who on these subjects speaks with great authority, says there will be endless difficulties: you would have to have elaborate inquiries in every part of the country. I really think that is not so. As the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has pointed out the divisional engineer has to report, and one of his standing instructions would be to see whether it was not necessary in the interest of public safety to have a footpath. It would not add very greatly to the complication of the present proceedings. I feel that I must press my Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not like the drafting of my noble friend Lord Cecil; on the other hand, as far as the object of the Amendment is concerned I cannot help thinking that many people in many parts of the country know that what is proposed is very much in the interest of the most helpless people in the country, and it is very desirable that there should be footpaths. Footpaths have been wiped out to a great extent in the course of the last forty or fifty years. It is astonishing to go round the countryside which one knew years ago and to see how footpaths have been obliterated. What the noble Viscount says in his Amendment is: "Let the responsible person consider, if you are going to spend money upon road-making, whether a footpath is necessary as part of that work you are going to do." So far as the drafting is concerned, it can be dealt with in another place, but the principle, I feel sure, is a most wholesome principle.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Powis, E.

Dickinson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rhayader, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sanderson, L.

Marley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Knutsford, V.

Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Tredegar, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Howe, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Mar and kellie, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

De La Warr, E.

Plymouth, E.

Hailsham, V.

Feversham, E.

Stanhope, E.

Bayford, L.

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

Stonehaven, L.

Cobham, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rockley, L.

Templemore, L.

Wakehurst, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to the principal Act, to insert "Section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it.'" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I quite conceive is of less importance than the one which we have just decided. The object of it is to leave out the words "they shall deem it" where they occur in Section 58 of the principal Act. At present the clause runs thus:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers …"
And then again—
"… wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock …"
I venture to suggest that what we ought to have are the words "wherever it is necessary," not "wherever they shall deem it necessary." The effect would be that if they did not do it it would be possible to proceed to the courts and ask the courts, in any particular case where there was great dereliction of duty, to review the matter, as, of course, you can review it in many cases of local government where the local authorities fail to carry out their duties. That is the suggestion I have to make. It is not one that brooks any considerable argument. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, but I trust they will be able to do that little thing for us if they will not do more.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, at end insert "section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it'").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. I dealt with this particular question somewhat fully on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powys, and I pointed out that it is the local authority, the county council, which is the highway authority and which is in the end responsible in these cases.
As a matter of fact, in my view, the Minister has the powers already which my noble friend wishes him to have, and the effect of this Amendment would, I venture to say, be nil. At the same time you would be relieving the highway authorities of responsibilities which are properly theirs and placing those responsibilities on the shoulders of the Minister. That, in effect, is what the Amendment would do. Instead of leaving it to the highway authorities to decide whether it is necessary or not, it would place the onus of deciding on the shoulders of the Minister.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Surely my noble friend is wrong, if he will allow me to say so. If you say, "You will have to do something if you think it is necessary," it is a complete answer for the local authority to say, "We do not think it is necessary." The Minister might be ever so clear that it is necessary and yet he would have no remedy.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The remedy is not to make a grant from the Road Fund.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That may be, but there may be the strongest possible feeling, as there is in the locality where I live, that they ought to have more power and they have no remedy. I do not say that in that particular case it would be possible to bring the matter to the courts, but the fact that it might be possible to proceed to the courts does make the official approach to these questions entirely different. They have to consider whether this is actually necessary, and they must consider, therefore, not only what their surveyor tells them, but whether the ordinary man in the street will think it is necessary. I hope my noble friend will accept the Amendment. If he is right and the effect will be nil, it will do no harm to accept. I am satisfied he is wrong, but that, naturally, he cannot believe. Therefore from his own point of view it will have no effect to accept the Amendment. From my point of view it will have great effect. I beg my noble friend to accept. It is not, as

1049
I say, a matter of the same importance as the Amendment which has just been rejected, but nevertheless it is a matter of considerable importance, and I do hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept it.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I would like to remind my noble friend before he considers giving way to this, that the way it will be considered by local authorities is that it is taking the power of decision which now belongs to them out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the Ministry. To that they will most certainly object.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of Section one of this Act)" and insert ("any enactment or of any statuory rule or order, imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I will only trouble your Lordships with a very few words in moving this Motion. Most of the Amendments are of a drafting nature and the others have been either moved or accepted by the Government and are substantial improvements to the Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 93.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from ("him") to ("shall") in line 10.
Clause 1, Page 1, line 11, at end insert (" Provided that this subsection shall not apply to causes of action for defamation or seduction, or for inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other, or to claims under Section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, for damages on the ground of adultery.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take these two Amendments together. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, on the death of any person causes of action, with certain exceptions, will survive against or for the benefit of his estate. The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that not only are causes of action for defamation and seduction excluded from the operation of the clause but also claims for damages against a co-respondent.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("vindictive") and insert ("exemplary")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with, the Commons in the Amendment in line 16 to leave out "vindictive" and insert "exemplary." I might explain that "exemplary" is the word commonly used, and it is considered a more suitable word than "vindictive."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) No proceedings shall be maintainable in respect of a cause of action in tort which by virtue of this section has survived against the estate of a deceased person unless either—

(a) proceedings against him in respect of that cause of action were pending at the date of his death; or

(b) the cause of action arose not earlier than six months before his death and proceedings are taken in respect thereof not later than six months after his personal representative took out representation.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words as printed. The object of this Amendment is to make the clause apply not only to actions but also to administration proceedings which are not actions.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment. The date of the Act is, of course, 1846, not 1843.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment of the Commons is also a drafting one. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 30, leave out from the beginning to ("be") in line 32 and insert:
("(6) In the event of the insolvency of an estate against which proceedings are maintainable by virtue of this section, any liability in respect of the cause of action in respect of which the proceedings are maintainable shall")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment on line 30. The object of this Amendment is to make the clause apply not only to actions but also to administration proceedings which are not actions.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846").
Clause 2, Page 3, line 15, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments of the Commons are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) In an action brought tinder the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses of the deceased person if such expenses have been incurred by the parties for whose benefit the action is brought")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words as printed. This is really only a drafting Amendment. It was thought that the words in the Bill might possibly be misconstrued. The object of the Amendment is to remove any possible idea that an unreasonably large sum must necessarily be awarded for funeral expenses.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 11:
Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.
11.—(1) In affording outdoor relief to any person a local authority shall disregard—
(c) the whole of the maternity benefit payable in respect of his own or his wife's insurance under the last-mentioned Acts, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefit and of any second maternity benefit within the meaning of those Acts; and
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "payable in respect of his own or his wife's insurance." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment is mainly drafting and is to ensure that the concession regarding maternity benefit will extend to the maternity benefit that is payable to an insured unmarried woman on her confinement. It was found that the provision in paragraph (c) of Clause 11 as it stands

1053
at present would not cover that case. It was, however, intended that such a case should be covered. The Amendment brings the provision into line with the corresponding provision in Section 38 (3) (a) of the Unemployment Act, 1934.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("benefit") to ("under") in line 42.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF SEA- FORD ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban, district of Seaford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.