Lords Sitting of 21 February 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (ADVERTISEMENT REGULATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to persons carrying on business as manufacturers or distributors of intoxicating liquor. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SILENCE ZONES.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the intention of the Minister of Transport to consider the prohibition of the giving of audible warning of approach by drivers of motor vehicles; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Paper because of an answer given in another place to a question. The Minister of Transport stated that, if application were made to him by any local authority, he was prepared to give favourable consideration to the banning of the use of the motor horn over the whole period of the twenty-four hours in the area in question. I have his exact words here, but I have paraphrased them for the sake of brevity.
Before I say anything else I should like to pay every possible tribute to the present Minister of Transport. I think we owe a very great deal to his courage and his drive, and to the zeal which he has shown in tackling the appalling problem of road accidents. He has done a number of things since he was appointed to his office with which some people have disagreed and for which he has been somewhat severely criticised. I refer, of course, to the provision of pedestrian crossings and cyclists' tracks, the imposition of driving tests and the steps he has taken to secure better roads. I am not one of those who joined in the general chorus of criticism aroused by those provisions. As a matter of fact, as I have already stated to your Lordships, I warmly support the efforts of the present Minister of Transport and I think the country owes him a great deal more than it generally realises.
But there is, I think, a certain danger in all these matters in going just a little too fast. I should like to submit to your Lordships that when you are making great changes in highway law and administration, it is reasonable that time should be given so that the results of any experiment may be properly assimilated and we may be able to judge from those results whether the experiment is beneficial or not. Both in your Lordships' House and also in another place, I have made many speeches advocating the establishment of silence zones and the banning of motor horns during certain hours. I mention that fact, not in order to claim any special credit, but simply to show that I have no thought of prejudice in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I do it simply and solely on the ground of public safety, for which I am perfectly certain every one of your Lordships is just as concerned as I am.
I submit that the banning of the use of the motor horn during the night hours has been entirely justified. If a driver wants to give warning to other road users then he can do it by flashing his headlights, and I have no doubt your Lordships have seen many drivers do that. But in the daylight hours a very different position arises. I should like to submit to your Lordships, if I may, the history of the question of audible warning of approach. It goes back a great many years, to the Local Govern-
1050
meat Act of 1888. Section 85 of that Act provides, in sub-section (1), that
"the following additional regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon such carriage."
The words "such carriage" are defined earlier in the subsection as "bicycle, tricycle, velocipede and other similar machine." Then paragraph (b) of the subsection says:
"Upon overtaking any cart or carriage, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger, being on or proceeding along the carriageway, every such person shall within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart or carriage, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the carriage."
That was continued and brought up to date by the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and other Acts.
I mention these facts to show your Lordships that this provision for audible warning of approach depends not upon the Order of a Minister, but upon ancient usage, and that it is prescribed by various Acts of Parliament going back to a period long before we ever heard of the Ministry of Transport. It was continued by an Order of the Local Government Board in (I think) 1896, and revised again in 1904. In 1930 we had the Road Traffic Act of that year, which repealed the Local Government Act of 1888, the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and the Motor Car Act, 1903, and made further provisions. Section 30 of that Act provided:
"The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act, and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally as to the use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads, their construction and equipment …"
and so on. The purpose of that is to give the Minister power to make regulations, and it was provided that one of the matters with respect to which he could make regulations included:
"the appliances to be fitted for signalling the approach of a motor vehicle, or enabling the driver of a motor vehicle to become aware of the approach of another vehicle from the rear, or for intimating any intended change of speed or direction of a motor vehicle and the use of any such appliance, and for securing that they shall be efficient and kept in proper working order."
And so it goes on. The Road Traffic Act, 1934, contained a provision for which

1051
I think I was partly responsible. I strongly pressed it upon the Minister, I remember, and he gave us a gracious concession during the passage of the Bill. The provision was one giving the Minister power to amend the regulations made under the Act of 1930 and to impose silence at night.
That is a more or less rough outline of the history of the provisions for audible warning of approach. But there is more to it than that. We have a Highway Code, though it is quite unknown probably to the drivers of many motor vehicles. I am quite certain that there are a great many people driving motor vehicles on the roads to-day who have never seen the Highway Code. I am glad to think that it is going to receive much more publicity in future, and if proper attention is paid to it I think it will do a lot of good. The Highway Code has been revised, but as a matter of fact the revision has not yet been brought into force. The old Highway Code said:
"When you decide to overtake other traffic sound your horn unless you are satisfied that such a precaution is unnecessary."
Later on the Code says:
"Remember that your horn is intended to be used as a warning and an indication, if needed, of your presence on the road; it should not be used as a threat.
"Sound your horn when approaching a danger point or when about to overtake, unless you are satisfied that such a precaution is unnecessary. Do not take it for granted that your warning has been heard: in no circumstances can the sounding of a horn excuse a driver from taking every other precaution to avoid an accident.
"Motor horns should not be used unnecessarily, and always with consideration for others, and especially for those in charge of animals. They should never be used to show annoyance or impatience."
Those are more or less the provisions in the legislation which govern the use of motor horns.
Yesterday in another place a number of questions were put to the Minister of Transport upon his proposed ban on the use of motor horns. It appears from Column 333 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place that a question was put to the Minister as to why he had not consulted the motoring organisations, and he said:
"There is therefore a very large volume of other opinion to be considered."
Everybody quite agrees with that.
1052
"I can only repeat that if any responsible local authority makes an application on behalf of its citizens as a whole for an experimental extension of the silence zone or for the trial of any other experimental safety measure it cannot but receive my favourable consideration."
In a further question, Sir William Brass asked:
"Is it a fact not only that the Minister did not ask any motoring organisation but that he did not ask the Road Traffic Advisory Committee or the Committee which was set up to advise him, and that he has acted entirely on his own?"
The Minister then said that he did not understand the position in which his honourable and gallant friend was desirous of placing him, but he went on to answer by saying:
"I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Will my noble friend forgive me if I interrupt him? He will observe that my right honourable friend the Minister had had two days' notice of the question.
EARL HOWE: I do not quite see the relevance of that particular point, because, after all, the Minister had answered a question in the House of Commons upon the matter some considerable time before. It was on February 13 that the Minister answered the first question put to him about it. Further questions appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, and those questions must be on the paper for forty-eight hours. All he was asked was why he did not consult the Road Traffic Advisory Committee. I was going to explain to your Lordships that working at the Ministry of Transport there is a statutory body called the Transport Advisory Council, which works under the Minister. It was set up with the idea that the Minister should collect advice from that body when proposing to take any action with regard, I suppose, to highway conditions generally. The Minister said in answer to a question in the House of Commons:
"I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
If that is the position, it seems to me that the sooner the Transport Advisory Council packs up the better.
There is also another body working at the Ministry of Transport, the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and in the

1053
course of the original questions and answers in the House of Commons, a member of the House—not for a London constituency, I need hardly say—invited the Minister to extend this proposed experiment to the London area. The Minister said that he would favourably consider that, but we have it on the authority of the Minister himself, in the House of Commons yesterday, that he has not consulted the Transport Advisory Council, and he has apparently not consulted the London Traffic Advisory Committee. There is also another Committee which sits at the Ministry of Transport, called the Transport Safety Advisory Committee, of which a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Lord Goschen, is Chairman. I happen to be a member of this Committee myself, and I do not think I am disclosing any State secret when I say that this matter has never been before us at all. Furthermore, I am authorised to say here this afternoon, quite definitely on behalf of the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association and the British Road Federation, which covers the entire commercial motor industry, that they entirely oppose the Minister's action, and I believe the Motor Legislation Committee have begged him to think again and not take action. I believe that the cyclists are just as much concerned as the motoring community about this matter. I have no information about the view of the pedestrians, but we have a distinguished member of the Pedestrians' Association here this afternoon, and we shall no doubt hear what their view is.
I have tried to show that this question is bound by an Act of Parliament, and I submit to your Lordships that the action which the Minister proposes to take is entirely unnecessary. I do not gather that there has been any great public clamour about the sounding of motor horns, or any large complaint. There is, it is true, an Anti-Noise League, presided over by a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, but I do not gather that the League has taken this matter up and urged the Minister in regard to daylight hours to interfere with the discretion of drivers. I understand that this plan has been tried previously in two places, Rome and Helsingfors. I do not know anything about Helsingfors. I do not claim to an extensive knowledge of Rome comparable with that of many members of
1054
your Lordships' House, but I have been there and have motored through the City. I submit that the conditions which obtain in those two places are not necessarily at all analagous to the conditions which obtain in this country. First of all, in Rome at any rate, the people generally, both drivers and pedestrians, have a much stronger traffic sense than the drivers and pedestrians in this country. Furthermore, the pedestrian population of Rome, at any rate, is regimented to a far greater extent than the pedestrian population in this country. As your Lordships perhaps know, they are only allowed to walk one way along the side of the street, and if they try to walk in another direction, a gentleman comes up and tells them that they must not. If they persist in doing so, I suppose they have to take the consequences. The position in Rome is very different from that which obtains here.
I submit, my Lords, that for forty years, since motors first appeared on the roads in this country, the population of this country generally, whether on foot or in vehicles, has been more or less educated up to the use of the motor horn, and I suppose that if a motor car is about the population, unconsciously, expects to hear a motor horn being used. It is very frequently remarked, if an accident happens; "Why did not you sound your horn?" And if a case comes into Court, the first question which a motor driver is invariably asked is: "Did you sound your horn?" If he says he did not, then the fact is counted as being against him.
I should like also to submit another point. I have here a Return of accidents which was collected during the year 1933, and I have been examining this Return with some care. It is a very complete Return. I am not going to give your Lordships more figures than I can possibly help, but I crave your indulgence to be allowed to give a few figures. There is a table showing the number of accidents which occurred each hour of the day during the whole of the week. Five of the days are shown separately. I have collected the whole lot. As your Lordships know, horn blowing is at present prohibited between 11.30 at night and 7 o'clock in the morning. My figures are from 7 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night, although there is another half-hour when horns van be used. In built-up areas in the year in question, there were 3,967 fatal accidents between the hours of

1055
7 in the morning and 11 at night. You will see from that that the additional ban which the Minister proposes to apply upon the use of motor horns covers the period of maximum traffic capacity. 92.7 per cent. of the total fatal accidents in 1933 occurred during those particular hours. There is a further table which shows the number of pedestrians killed, analysed in age groups and indicating the physical condition of the pedestrian at the time of the accident. It deals with people who are ill, people who are deaf, who are not affected by the ban, and people with bad sight. These last totalled 96 killed in built-up areas, and 16 in other areas, making a total of 112 altogether. If a motor driver is not allowed to have discretion when he shall sound his horn in built-up areas, people with bad sight are going to be the first people to suffer.
Another table shows the number of pedestrians killed, analysed in age groups, and indicating the movement of pedestrians, such as, passing behind or in front of a stationary vehicle other than a tramcar at the side of road or in the centre of road, and passing behind or in front of a stationary tramcar. No fewer than 405 people lost their lives through doing that in built-up areas and, if you take those killed in other areas, the figure rises to 503. I should like to submit to your Lordships that if you are driving along a road those are the very people who must have the warning of a motor horn being blown if you are going to prevent them from running into danger. In the same table, lower down, we find the number of killed while walking in the direction of traffic although a footpath was available, or where no footpath was available. Fifty-five pedestrians lost their lives doing that. Those also are people who must be warned by the use of horns. They are contravening the Highway Code, but they must be warned. 4 further table refers, of course, to drivers, excluding pedal cyclists. There were forty-seven deaths due to pulling out suddenly to overtake or from the kerb in built-up areas, and sixty-two people lost their lives as a result of motor cars failing to give audible notice of approach in built-up areas. These figures are for the year 1933, and I am certain the figures are not less to-day. Taking the country as a whole 103 lives were lost owing to failure of motor cars
1056
to give audible warning of approach. What is going to be the position when the driver is not allowed to have discretion as to whether or not to use his horn? There are many other fatalities to which I could have referred, but I will refrain from doing so and hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting all these figures, which must be considered if we are to appreciate the gravity of this problem.
There is a table showing fatal accidents in Great Britain in 1933, the causes of which are attributed to pedestrians. The figures relate only to. built-up areas; if other areas were included they would, of course, be a good deal worse. Through running into the roadway from the footpath 608 persons lost their lives. Are not they the people who should be warned by the use of the horn? Through walking or running from behind a vehicle without due care 445 people were killed. Surely the driver ought to have a horn to try and warn those people. Through stepping from a kerb or refuge without looking 335 people were killed. Those are the most important headings, but there is also "walking in the roadway apparently inattentive to traffic," forty-six deaths, and "playing in the roadway"—obviously little children—forty-nine. It is not a question of one class of traffic, it is not a question of something to facilitate the ruthless progress of the road-hog, it is really a question of urgent public importance; it is a question of public safety and nothing else.
I feel that it is a terrible thing that the Minister should have gone so far as to decide, so far as I can make out entirely "on his own"—he almost admits it in his statement in the House of Commons—without consulting anybody, to go in for an experiment which I cannot help feeling is reckless beyond words. What is a driver to do? He sees a small child playing in front of him, or a person walking into the roadway without paying attention—why, the position is intolerable. You would have to break the law in order to give him an adequate warning. I submit that this House ought to insist that the Minister should at any rate think again. At any rate, let him take counsel with the various bodies which have been appointed to assist him. Many members, not only of your Lordships' House but of another place, many representatives of the Pedestrians' Association, cyclists and

1057
other road interests are all members of these committees or public bodies. It is fantastic that the Minister should have done such a thing without, apparently, consulting any of these bodies. I beg to move.
LORD BEDESDALE: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, and although I know that your Lordships do not like personalities, I think you may possibly forgive me if I begin by explaining to you that my reason for speaking at all on the subject is that I have some experience. In the case of the noble Earl it is quite unnecessary for him to make such an explanation. But I have been driving a car now for over thirty years. I go everywhere by car, and I have never had any trouble of any sort with any of the authorities, nor have I ever made a claim against an insurance company. You cannot drive for thirty years in those circumstances in a reckless way and have that record, I say that not to take any credit for it, but just to show your Lordships that I do know something about driving. I think that probably nobody is more annoyed by the abuse of the horn than I am. I find it most maddening when driving along to hear the way some people use their horns. In some cases it is an intolerable nuisance. But if you abolished the horn altogether I really do not know how you are to use a car at all.
For instance, suppose you are going along a road and there is a high wind blowing. The motor cars of to-day do not announce their presence in the way that the motor cars did twenty years ago, because you could hear them coming then; now you cannot hear them. Two cyclists riding abreast cannot be aware of the presence of a car unless the driver is to be allowed to warn them, which is in fact his duty under the existing law. Another case where you frequently avoid an accident by use of a horn is in drawing up at the side of a road behind a stationary car; otherwise the occupant of that stationary car may not observe that you have come there and may suddenly start backing into you. Your only way of letting him know is to touch your horn.
Even in London you can drive all day and perhaps not touch your horn once, but there are times when it is essential. It is imperative that you should have the horn and be allowed to use it. Then there are a lot of "twisty" lanes in the
1058
country and in villages where, if a man were not allowed to use a horn, it would not be safe to go at all at any speed, because the corners are extremely abrupt and very often hidden by foliage. Another case is the case where you find yourself behind a hay-cart. If you are not allowed to say you are there I do not know how you are to pass the hay-cart; you would stay there for the rest of the day. It seems to me absolutely essential that you should be allowed to have a horn and use it when necessary. But of course if the abuse in unnecessary cases could be checked in any way, I should be the first to support that.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Earl who introduced this debate for raising a subject which is of great importance. I have not had any opportunity of consulting the Minister of Transport and I do not quite know what the position exactly is. All we have got to go upon is the answer that he has given in the House of Commons. As far as I understand that answer, which I read this morning, what he said was that if the local authority representing the population of a district asks him to suppress the use of horns within their district he will favourably consider that request. I cannot myself see how a democratic Minister could possibly say less than that. These are the people who represent the population in their district. Surely the Minister must answer: "Of course I shall consider favourably what a body of that kind says."
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Do I understand that my noble friend favours a system which gives you a non-horn area here and a horn area there—a sort of chessboard all over the country? That would be absolute Bedlam.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think my noble friend had better wait until he hears what I am going to say, instead of trying to anticipate it. I was, so far, only trying to ascertain the position in which the question really is at this moment. It is said that before giving that answer the Minister ought to have consulted the Advisory Committees. I confess I was rather terrified by the list of Advisory Committees which, as I understood my noble friend to say, it would be the duty of the Minister of Transport to consult, even before he

1059
began to consider the question. I should have thought that that consultation should take place, if at all, before he takes action, and not before he begins to consider the subject. As to his failure to consult a variety of motoring interests, I am forced to say that whenever the motoring interests have been consulted they have always been against any reform of any sort, and nobody knows that better than my noble friend Lord Howe, because he has often appeared in this House having to explain that he is not in accord with the motoring societies. Therefore I do not think there is very much to be said against the Minister of Transport on those grounds.
My noble friend made a great deal of the history of the use of the horn, and of course it is unquestionable that it was regarded as one of the precautions which ought to be imposed on motorists. The only thing that can be said is that that precaution has so far not been successful. Speaking broadly, we all deplore the extreme dangers of the road. The mere existence of this duty to sound a horn does not appear to be capable of preventing any considerable number of accidents—at any rate, it leaves a very large number which it does not prevent. And that is really the case, it seems to me the efficient case, for this action on the part of the Minister. He has said that he is not prepared to rule out a a priori and straight off any proposal made by a responsible body which aims at increasing the safety of the roads. We ought to be very grateful to the Minister of Transport for taking this attitude. We have got a long way beyond the time when Ministers of Transport used to get up and say they did not attach very much importance to the precautions that could be taken because, after all, the only thing was to cultivate "road-sense" and consideration as between one user of the highway and another. That has been said in my hearing over and over again and was indeed the whole foundation on which the Act of 1930 was built—namely, that it was only to encourage that excellent but, I fear, impracticable ideal.
I feel we have got to make tremendous efforts to get rid of this scandal and outrage. My noble friend said we must be afraid of going too fast. I do not feel that at all. I am much more afraid of doing too little, and I personally feel a great debt of gratitude to the Minister
1060
of Transport, as indeed the noble Earl does, for the energy and vigour which he has shown since he came into office, in trying experiment after experiment, even if, so far, he has not succeeded in finding a solution of the serious difficulty in which we find ourselves. I would do nothing to discourage experiment even if it turned out that in a particular locality where he thought it well to allow an experiment to be tried it produced greater inconvenience or even greater danger. It can always be abolished immediately; and if he thinks on consideration that there is a reasonable chance of its doing good, I hope very much that he will proceed on his own judgment in this matter and take that step if it is necessary.
I cannot conceal from myself that sounding a motor horn is a very great danger on many occasions. There is a type of motorist—we all know him—who thinks that as soon as he has sounded his horn it is the business of whoever is in his way to get out of the way, and he goes on without any regard to the danger he may be running, expecting the other people to scurry to one side of the road or the other so that they may not interfere with the speed at which he is going. We have all known that kind of motorist—I am sure my noble friend must have known him. I have seen his type on the roads constantly. I have heard him on the roads constantly, and that is a very great danger. I remember talking to a young motorist not long ago and saying there was a great deal to be said for the view that horns really produced more risks than they cured, and the motorist replied: "Oh well, of course when you are coming to a corner you sound your horn. If you hear nothing in return, then there is nothing there and you can go on." That is the kind of attitude of mind that produces disaster, and that is the kind of attitude, not common with the great mass of motorists I agree, which is common to the small section who are responsible for these fearful disasters on the road.
I do not think it is true to say that the practice of sounding a horn is always a measure of precaution. It is very often merely a kind of permission to act recklessly, and you have got to weigh that

1061
consideration against the possible use of the horn for safety purposes. I do not deny that it may on occasions promote safety, but I do not think it always does so. It may promote danger more often than safety. It seems to me that that can only be ascertained by trying an experiment in this and other ways. My noble friend Lord Howe and my noble friend who has just spoken gave a number of instances in which, if the horn is not used, the danger would he very much increased. I venture to think that in a number of these cases the alternative is to reduce speed. The alternative it to travel at a speed at which you are able to stop if an unexpected danger arises, not to sound the horn and go on as fast as ever. As to the numbers which my noble friend gave of the different types of accidents, they seem to me to be open to this observation, that they only show that sounding horns was of very little value from the point of view given of avoiding danger.
For these reasons, and without expressing my personal opinion as to whether it would be desirable or not to abolish horns in any particular district, I think the Minister of Transport, if I may say so, was perfectly right when he said that if the local authority in any district comes to him with a proposal that in that particular district, for the reasons which they might give, it would be desirable to abolish the use of motor horns, he would consider that proposal, and consider it favourably, since it comes from the responsible authority. If, after considering it and receiving proper advice on the subject, he decides to carry out an experiment in that direction, I personally should only congratulate him on his courage and decision and public spirit.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while I sympathise with every attempt the Minister of Transport is making to reduce the number of accidents on the road, I look upon this particular proposal as one of extreme danger. When the Minister brought in the ban on hooting at night, I was never particularly against it, because at night you have lights which you can switch on and off to attract the attention of pedestrians and other motorists who may happen to be in the way. No doubt the sounding of motor horns is very annoying at night time to many people, but
1062
it is a totally different thing during the day. It is not only a question of getting pedestrians to clear out of the way. Only to-day, when I was corning down to the House, a pedestrian stepped off the kerb without looking. I was travelling at only about ten miles an hour; but if I had not blown my horn and given the pedestrian time to step back, he would have walked right into my path and I should have had to stop dead or knock him down.
What would happen, for instance, in Regent Street? There you have got these strolling taximeter cabs waiting for a fare, very frequently in the middle of the road. The noble Earl said you must not blow your horn in annoyance or impatience—I think that was the word he used. It is not a question of being annoyed, it is not a question altogether of impatience. It may mean holding up the rest of the traffic behind you if you do not blow your horn and make such a vehicle get out of the way. The whole street may be blocked, and this may affect traffic in the streets behind you. I was told by one traffic expert not long ago that a hold-up of this kind in the Strand for a few moments had an effect on traffic at Watford! The noble Earl will agree with me that France was one of the first places to abolish hooting during the night, but they have gone no further in the matter. I should think their decision was brought about by the extremely tiresome horn which they use and which gives a peculiar note that annoys everybody.
If it were possible for the Minister to standardise horns in this country, I think it would be a very good thing. The klaxon is a nerve-racking horn, and some of the new cars to-day have a very piercing note which makes people jump when the horn is pressed. On the other hand, a short time ago I drove a car with a horn that had quite a pleasant note. I suggest for the Minister's consideration that, instead of trying to abolish horns altogether, it might be a very good thing to standardise some form of horn that does not get on people's nerves. If you abolish the use of the horn altogether during the day-time, how are you to let children playing in the road know that you are coming? Are you to stop until they notice you? It seems to me, if that is going to be the case, that we had better abolish motor cars altogether and

1063
go back to horse traffic. Finally, I would like to refer to an incident that happened to me this morning. A dog was crossing the road and when I blew the horn it took notice. Every motorist knows that if you sound your horn a dog takes notice in the same way as pedestrians do. Very often, however, motorists have to cut across to the sides of the road in order to avoid animals or pedestrians, and this swerve may easily cause the motorist, especially if the road is wet, to collide with something else, to knock down and perhaps kill a pedestrian, or go on to the pavement. I look upon the proposal as a dangerous one and hope I shall hear something from the noble Earl who will reply for the Government to the effect that the Ministry is not going to impose the abolition of horns.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am certainly not in a position to be able to urge the universal abolition of the use of the horn, but I do want very strongly to support the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) when he urges that the Minister of Transport should give careful consideration to this proposal if it comes to him from some special local authority which believes that, in its own area, this may prevent sonic of the appalling loss of life which goes on day by day. There is one reason, and one reason only, why I want to see an experiment of this kind tried. We are confronted with the appalling problem that 7,000 people are killed every year through motor traffic and over 200,000 are injured, and that the various efforts which have been made of late, and the various appeals which have been made, have so far hardly reduced at all the sum total of these heavy losses. If that is the case, it is surely worth while trying almost any experiment which holds out any hope, however faint it may be, of reducing this appalling figure of casualties. I do not know whether this particular proposal would be ultimately successful, but it is far better to try it than to acquiesce quietly in these terrible casualties on the roads.
I was perplexed as I listened to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced this subject. He quoted a large number of casualties which the horn so far has failed to prevent. He put to us the problem: What is to be done if the
1064
motorist sees a child in the road? I think the answer to that is a perfectly simple one. The car should stop until the child has been warned to move away. What is the objection to these proposals? The real objection, I believe, is not so much that danger may be increased, but that speeds may be lessened. I have been struck by the fact that the best motorists use their horns least of all, and that those who use the horn most frequently are the motorists who tear along our roads, regardless and reckless of their own lives and the lives and safety of others. Some of the most capable motorists I know tell me they have driven hundreds of miles without sounding their horns and without any danger. I think facts like these should make us anxious to see that consideration, at any rate, is given to an experiment of this kind.
After all, if speed is reduced, if it takes us sixty minutes instead of fifty minutes to reach our destination, what is that compared to the increased safety of the road? We shall be travelling very much faster than we were travelling twenty-five years ago. I do not for a moment think even if the plan is carried out, that by itself it will solve this problem. The problem must be attacked from various directions, and I hope that the Government will, at the earliest possible moment, check ribbon development, which, I think, is one of the main causes leading to casualties. The roads which were meant for safety have become real death traps. We have roads running out of London which at first were safe, but which have now become so dangerous that it is much simpler and easier and safer to use the old roads. Every day that we delay in dealing with this problem at ribbon development will make the problem more difficult and intricate to solve.
There is just one further observation I should like to make. I believe that one of the very best ways of reducing the mortality of the roads will be heavier sentences upon those who drive so swiftly and recklessly, the two things combined creating the danger. The majority of motorists are most considerate. The majority are skilful and careful drivers. The nightmare of the roads is due to a small minority who think only of themselves, who are filled with the lust of

1065
speed, and who care nothing about the safety and comfort of others. They cut round corners, they tear on where they ought to exercise caution, they drive swiftly where they ought to drive slowly, they are deaf to the appeals of reason which are made to them, they are too selfish to care for the interests of others, and they are a real menace to the life and safety of the people who use our roads. Very often, when they are sentenced, the sentence is a trifling one compared to the penalty which is imposed on someone who has committed an offence of another kind. Yet these reckless people are a greater danger to the community than the pickpocket or the housebreaker. I hope we shall give the Minister of Transport every support in any experiment which is likely to have some shadow of hope of reducing the fatalities on the roads.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who opened this discussion spoke, if I may say so, with all his usual persuasiveness and showed us ranged behind him, in embattled ranks, apparently unanimous motorist opinion. Some of us who take a different view from the noble Earl may perhaps console ourselves by remembering, as the Minister of Transport reminded another place, I think yesterday, that the motoring organisations, with one exception, unanimously resisted the recent proposal to impose a ban on horns at night, and that they now unanimously approve that practice. I hope that one of the results of this experiment, if it takes place—not the most fruitful result, but at any rate one agreeable result—will be that in this respect, too, the motoring organisations' experiences may bring about a similar belated conversion. The noble Earl has sought to show, an in fact it was necessary for him to show if he was going to make out his case, that the imposition of such a ban throughout the twenty-four hours would not only fail to reduce the appalling casualities on the roads, but would actually increase them.
We are all aware, and we cannot too frequently remind ourselves, of the present position—250,000 casualties on the road every year! This is a problem equal in urgency to the problem of unemployment, or the problem of the slums, both of which receive so much more political attention. In face of that situation the
1066
Minister of Transport, as I understand him, says merely that he is prepared to consider proposals from local authorities for the introduction of a practice which would not only—and this is a point which I think has not been touched upon today—noticeably increase the amenities of the streets, but would also, in the opinion of many, very considerably increase their safety. Surely no one can object to such an experiment as that unless he is in a position to show, not merely that it will not have any very spectacular results, but that it will actually increase the danger. The noble Earl, if he saw a responsible and experienced fireman trying to put out a terrific blaze with a novel extinguisher, would not rush off with cries of horror and alarm unless he felt convinced from information in his possession that the new extinguisher was actually going to cause an explosion. That, in effect, is what the noble Earl has attempted to show.
Is he justified in asking us to ignore so completely the experience of foreign countries Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in Rome an experiment has been tried for a number of weeks of banning the use of the motor horn throughout the twenty-four hours, and Signor Mussolini is so well content with the result of that experiment that he has invited local authorities to extend it throughout the length and breadth of the country. In Finland, where the experiment has gone on for four years, the Government have actually stated that the result has been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of fatal accidents. Is there any reason why an experiment which has been attended by such success in countries so distant, with such different climates and inhabited by such different types of people, as Italy and Finland, should inevitably lead to disaster if introduced in Great Britain? Is there any obvious reason why an experiment which has halved the number of road fatalities in Finland should double them in Great Britain?
The noble Earl will no doubt reply that these are examples from foreign countries; but let us come nearer home. I think the noble Viscount has dealt sufficiently with the statistics which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted of what has happened in England, and therefore I think we are perhaps forced back very

1067
largely upon the authoritative opinion of persons who have had experience of motoring in this country, who have considered these problems and have studied our statistics. I would suggest to the noble Earl that the opinion of such persons is by no means so unanimous as he seems to suppose. I will take first the Pedestrians' Association, the object of which is to promote safety on the road. The secretary of that Association has given it as his opinion that:
"The effect of driving on the horn has been to transfer the onus from the motorist to keep his vehicle under control on to the potential victim to get out of the way. My own opinion is that driving by sight rather than by sound will make for safety."
He personally, I am authorised to say, would warmly welcome this experiment.
Then may I draw your Lordships' attention to a very remarkable broadcast made last September, which some of your Lordships may have heard? It was made by a Mr. Hales who, I think, is a member in another place, and in the course of his broadcast he used these words:
"I have had no less than thirty-seven years' experience of motor driving, and during the whole of that time I have never sounded a horn and never met with an accident. I have been actively engaged all this time in the motor trade, driving cars every week from London to the Midlands, and taking part in numerous non-stop runs and hill-climbing competitions. So I hope this entitles me to an opinion, and my opinion is that the only real cure for the steadily increasing number of road accidents is the absolute restriction of the use of the horn."
I think that is a very remarkable opinion from a person who obviously is entitled to give that opinion. Your Lordships will doubtless have observed that both these people, the secretary of the Pedestrians' Association and Mr. Hales, welcome this experiment for precisely the same reason, that it would end the practice commonly described as "driving on the horn"—that is, scattering as far around and ahead of you as possible so much noise that you feel able to drive at a much greater speed than you would otherwise dare to indulge in.
May I now quote from a leading article in The Times? The Times said:
"The motor horn is regarded as an instrument of safety. It is safety's greatest enemy. It is the possession of a penetrating horn which encourages the bad driver to go full speed into danger."
That practice of driving on the horn is, of course, fed by the motor horn industry.
1068
I wonder whether your Lordships have ever noticed the remarkable language of some of the advertisements of motor horns. One is described as "a necessity for fast touring." Another is described as "the loudest on the market with a very impressive sound carrying over an immense distance." And in the more staccato style of America a manufacturer there simply describes the horn he sells as "a sure road clearer." I think it is this practice of driving on the horn, for which the motor horn industry is obviously catering, which is responsible for an extremely large proportion of our accidents. Undoubtedly it not only produces careless driving but careless walking. The practice of driving on the road with "a sure road clearer" undoubtedly produces the jay walker as well as the jay driver.
If I may revert to another argument which the noble Earl used, I should like to say that I do not think it is fair or quite correct at this stage of our experience, to use the familiar argument that the first question always asked in a police court or by a coroner or by an insurance company is: "Did you use your horn?" The noble Earl will probably remember that Sir Henry Maybury's Committee on Road Traffic Noises in 1929 went out of their way to refer to the deplorable results of that practice. I think it would be much truer to say to-day that coroners and justices who know their business do not ask that question, and it is to be hoped that the others will soon be taught their business and cease to ask that question with anything like the implication which the noble Earl attaches to it.
As to the universal and unanimous opinion of the motor organisations of the inevitable disaster of introducing this experment, I cannot help remembering that several times during the last few months the Automobile Association has, with legitimate pride, drawn attention to the fact that it has itself placed hoards outside hospitals urging motorists not to hoot, and has thereby very greatly reduced the amount of hooting. But either hooting is essential to avert accidents or it is not. If it is essential, then it is equally essential outside hospitals, and if it is not essential, as one must assume from the fact that the Automobile Association has publicly encouraged motorists not to indulge in hooting by day, then I think

1069
to some extent their opinion of the proposed ban on horns may be discounted. I would therefore venture to remind your Lordships that on one aspect at any rate of this proposed experiment—that it would greatly increase the amenity of City life wherever it was carried out—there has so far been no argument; and on the other, as regards an increase in safety, I would at any rate venture to submit that all foreign example and authoritative argument based upon a considerable degree of our own experience do combine to point to the conclusion that we should also gain very greatly in that respect.
I do not for a moment suggest, and no noble Lord who has addressed the House has suggested, that it is going to lead to anything like spectacular results. For myself I entirely agree with what has fallen from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, that we are not going to get anything approaching a spectacular reduction in this appalling tragedy until our Courts have better learnt their responsibility to the public, and are prepared to deal more severely with deadly driving; but I do believe that this experiment, if it is taken advantage of, will be a step in the right direction. I venture to assure the Minister that there are at any rate large sections of the public which will very warmly welcome it.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion, and in my opinion two points emerge from the speeches made by noble Lords. The first is: Has the Minister come to the conclusion at which he has arrived in the best way? The second is, whether this experiment, if carried out, will do more good than harm. As to the first point, as to whether the Minister has been well advised to arrive at his decision in the way in which he has arrived at it, I think he has been very ill advised. May I give my reason? When I had the honour of being Minister of Transport, I welcomed these Committees; I cherished these Committees. I regarded them as the safeguard of the Minister against unjust criticism, because if you go to these Committees and get their advice, then if what you decree is a success you will take the credit, and if it is not a success, then that is the fault of the advice officially given you by the Statutory Committees. Therefore it
1070
seems to me that it is unwise—not unconstitutional, of course, but unwise—on his part not to have taken the obvious precautions to guard himself and his office against that criticism. So far as I recollect, no Minister is obliged to consult these Committees; he can do it entirely on his own initiative. I am not suggesting in any way that the Minister has done anything illegal, but I certainly think that from his own point of view, and from the point of view of the general public, who think, "If these Committees are in existence we ought to know what they think," he has been ill advised in the course which he has taken.
As to whether the prohibition of the use of the horn would do more good than evil, it is really very hard to say. Personally I think that the danger would be very appreciably increased. I take myself as an example. The week before last, I was walking along the pavement and came to a cross road, and very stupidly I walked on to the road without looking round. A car came round the corner, not unduly fast, and unless the driver of that car had been able to blow his horn I should have been severely injured or killed. It was not the driver's fault, it was entirely my own fault. Therefore I cannot conceive that you can with safety entirely prohibit the use of the horn by the driver of a motor car. If you cannot do that without increasing the danger to the pedestrian, to children suddenly running across the road or to stupid men like myself suddenly stepping off the pavement, it is obvious, at any rate to me, that administratively you cannot do anything at all, because if you say that a driver may in emergencies use his horn, nobody would ever be convicted for using a horn. The driver will always be able to say: "There was an emergency; I saw that a man was going to step off the kerb," or that this or that happened. Therefore convictions would be very few and far between.
Do remember, my Lords, that the roads of this country are at the present moment congested, and unless there is some audible way of telling one of those great railway trains which drive in front of you, or a hay cart, that you want to pass, as the noble Lord who spoke second in the debate said you will stay behind it the whole of the afternoon. I do not see how the prohibition of the blowing

1071
of horns is going to diminish the danger. Why should the non-blowing of a horn diminish the danger to a pedestrian, to the rider of a bicycle or to the driver of another motor car? That it will increase amenities is, I think, obvious, but that has not been put forward as the reason for the prohibition. It is simply put forward as a step towards decreasing the terrible toll of the roads, which we all deplore. In my considered opinion it will not do good so far as casualties are concerned; it will only increase the dangers.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to this debate before the Government reply is made. It would be a mistake to suppose for a moment that we are not all of us united in the same object, and I think that those who are inclined to regard the speeches of the noble Earl who introduced this Motion as speeches on behalf of motorists and of greater speed on the part of motorists, are doing him an injustice. I think that he strongly feels that the introduction of complete zones of silence for twenty-four hours per day in any districts might add to instead of diminishing the accidents. It seems that we have the word of the Minister of Transport saying that he will favourably consider any such proposal from any local authority. I think the first question that arises is: Does that mean that he will give unqualified consent straight away; or does it mean that he will consult his advisers and come to the best conclusion that he can? Further, does it mean that where he considers that silence should be imposed, he will allow a certain discretion to Police officers in certain provocative circumstances? Otherwise it might be said that in those localities where there is to be a twenty-four hour zone of silence motor horns should be removed from the cars.
The very idea of that makes one feel that there would be considerable danger. I once found that my horn was completely out of order and would not respond, and I do not think that I have ever in my life had a more uncomfortable and apprehensive drive. If everybody on the road behaved with perfect care and courtesy, of course there would be no danger, but one has to be perpetually on the lookout for the little lapses which all three classes of users of the road, pedal cyclists,
1072
pedestrians and motorists, are liable to make. Coming down to the House this afternoon in my capacity as a pedestrian I was thinking, as pedestrians do, of interesting and important things, and I left the pavement not at right angles but diagonally. I am very, very thankful to the driver of the car behind me for having given that little cautious bleat which made me go back to the pavement and behave as I ought to have behaved. We are all liable to these mistakes, and rigidly to condemn all horn blowing is, I think, likely to lead to further accidents. Of course, nobody defends for one single moment what the noble Lord who spoke just now described as "driving on the horn." We are all in entire agreement with what he said, that so far as possible there ought to be driving by sight and not on the horn. There are frequent occasions where a reminder from a horn can save a difficulty, an accident, an error of judgment, and an absolute ban may therefore lead to some further dangers.
I should like to add how much I agree with what fell from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, with regard to heavier sentences on the part of magistrates. They are still far too lenient, and I think the withdrawal of a licence for a period is not often enough imposed on some of these extremely careless motorists. There is a form of penalty which I have advocated before, and which I should like to bring again to the notice of the Minister of Transport. And may I say that I for one appreciate the way in which the Minister has been ready to listen to any suggestion, and has been experimenting right and left to deal with this terrible problem. The suggestion is one which I think has the support of the noble Earl who introduced the Motion. It is that where there is an accident, however slight that accident may be, and where the intervention of the Police is necessary, the driver of the car should have his car confiscated for the time being, and he should be told that as an accident has happened he must leave his car there and walk to the nearest railway, or get a taxicab. I believe that that would be a very great deterrent, because I think there are a number of these offending motorists who desire, through thick and thin, to get to their destination as quickly as possible. If they thought they were

1073
running any risk of being delayed in their passage, they would drive with very much inure care than at present.
I do not myself think that these horns are responsible for the worst noise on the road to-clay. I think the open exhausts and other noises of these very heavy lorries with loose iron in them are very much worse. While I think horn blowing has been abused, I do not think it is as offensive as it used to be. I agree with Lord Elton that the advertisements which he has read out ought to be brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, with a view of checking advertisements of tint kind. I hope that the Government will say that this is not going to be a hard and fast ban in certain districts, which, in the opinion of many of those who have spoken this afternoon, might add to, rather than diminish, the number of accidents.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I would wish to congratulate the noble Earl on the fact that he has raised this issue this afternoon. I believe that a great many people, motorists and pedestrians, in the country have been very startled indeed at the entirely novel idea in this country that there should be zones laid down in which no horns are to be blown. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who said so in the earlier part of his speech, I believe that the Minister for Transport has done his very best to meet a very serious situation, and the fact that he has tried experiments, whether successful or not, is in my opinion to his credit, and not to his discredit. Other noble Lords who have spoken are entirely of that view also. But this afternoon we are discussing an experiment which goes far beyond any experiment which has been suggested hitherto, and I must confess that I view that experiment with considerable anxiety. At the same time, we have been told that this experiment has been tried in foreign countries with success, and that therefore we ought not to say that that experiment, if tried in this country, must necessarily fail. I feel, however, that the whole of this question is based on what I may call a hypothetical case.
What I should like to know from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who is going to reply, is whether any local authority has been so bold as to ask the Minister of Transport to create a silence zone within its district. All we have heard is
1074
that, if a local authority should make such a suggestion, the Minister of Transport would be prepared favourably to consider it. If there is any authority that is prepared to make such a proposal, I have little doubt that the local authority has thought out very carefully all the effects of taking that action, but I am very doubtful, in spite of the fact that this question has been raised, and the Minister of Transport has stated that he would favourably consider such a proposal, whether there is any local authority which would dare make such a suggestion. If there is such a local authority, then I for one cannot blame the Minister of Transport if he is prepared to try this out in that particular area; but I would suggest to the Minister of Transport, if he is going to do such a thing, that he confines the experiment to one area to begin with, in order to see whether this new experiment is likely to be successful or not. I hope the noble Earl, when he replies for the Government, will tell your Lordships whether there is any local authority which is prepared to make this suggestion to the Minister of Transport for his consideration.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, at the beginning of my few observations I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by other noble Lords, congratulating the present Minister of Transport on the way in which he has endeavoured to find means of reducing the heavy loss of life which is general, on every day of the year, upon our English roads. I feel that your Lordships will also have appreciated that, although criticisms may have been offered of many of the schemes that have been introduced, they are, at any rate, now serving some purpose and use. The debate to which we have just listened is one of great interest, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, if I may for one moment, to the question asked and the answer given in the House of Commons on February 13, when this matter first came to the attention of the public. Sir John Pybus, the late Minister of Transport, asked the present Minister
"whether he would be prepared to consider applications from local authorities for the experimental extension of the silence zones in their own areas to the whole of the twenty-four hours?"

1075
My honourable friend replied:
"Yes, Sir. I am prepared to give favourable considerations"—
I ask your Lordships to note those words—
"to any applications from local authorities for the experimental extension of the silence zones in their own areas to the whole of the twenty-four hours."
There was a supplementary question with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
From the answer which my honourable friend gave I think it will be apparent to your Lordships that he was prepared to examine the whole question if a, local authority submitted such a scheme to him, and to go into the merits of that one scheme. And, indeed, it will be obvious to the House, I think, that I cannot at present give any answer to the questions that have been addressed to me by the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, who asked whether, in the event of an application being made, the Minister would immediately give unqualified assent. As I have said, my honourable friend would have to examine the whole of the scheme on its merits, and see whether the scheme and the district where it was proposed to put it into effect were such that the experiment could properly be tried.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I ask whether the Minister would also consult the appropriate Committee and take their advice?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to that later on. I wish now to refer to the quotations which were made by my noble friend who moved the Motion, who, if he will permit me to say so, slightly misrepresented the views of the Minister. I think it is necessary to read the answer to one of the questions put in another place yesterday. The Minister was asked
"whether he has consulted any motoring organisations as to the advisability or not of experimenting with silence zones over the whole twenty-four hours before he came to his decision to give favourable consideration to applications from local authorities on this matter?"
My honourable friend the Minister of Transport replied:
"It is not my practice to consult motoring organisations before answering questions in the House of Commons, although I am always glad to have their suggestions and
1076
observations. I would point out that of the 250,000 persons killed and injured on the roads in the course of a year only a very small percentage of the victims are motor drivers."
A supplementary question was asked, which my noble friend Lord Howe quoted, and my honourable friend, in reply, said:
"I do not understand the position in which my honourable and gallant friend is desirous of placing me. I was asked a question by an honourable friend of mine in this House, and given two days' notice, whether I would favourably consider an application by a local authority. I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it."
I have not yet held the responsible position of a Minister, but I had always understood that the duty of a Minister was to accept the responsibility. And indeed I cannot see why my honourable friend should have to go and consult a committee within two days to find out whether they are in agreement with him, or whether the committee are in violent disagreement among themselves, as is so frequently the case. I really think my noble friend must not expect the Minister, when replying to a question in another place, to do so on any but his own authority.
The question was raised during the course of the debate about various places which are at the moment experimenting with silence zones, and I should like to refer to them. I think it is too soon yet to say definitely to what extent a restriction of the use of warning instruments has contributed to public safety by encouraging drivers to rely entirely upon their own powers and their own alertness for the avoidance of accidents, but experiments are in operation in a number of European countries. In Paris all hooting is prohibited between 10 o'clock at night and 7 in the morning, and it is understood that the extension of the prohibition has recently been considered. There has been in the case of Paris a very notable reduction in street accidents. In Germany regulations were brought into force in October last, enabling the authorities to prohibit hooting in any part of the country. Experiments in the prohibition of hooting are being tried in Berlin and elsewhere, and hooting has been forbidden at all hours of the day and night in Stuttgart, except in cases of urgent necessity, and it is claimed by the German authorities that the prohibition has so far worked with great success.

1077
With regard to Italy, which was quoted by my noble friend, a complete ban on the use of motor horns by day and by night is now imposed throughout Rome, and the Italian authorities have stated that the experiment in Rome has resulted in a large reduction in the number of accidents. Similar experiments have been tried in Spain, while at Helsingfors in Finland severe restrictions on hooting during the whole of the twenty-four hours have been in force for the last four years, during which time the number of street accidents involving personal injury has been reduced by 50 per cent. I agree that that is an extraordinary reduction, but I am advised that there is not the slightest doubt that the prohibition of hooting in that City has had the most astounding effect. The system of silence zones is in operation also in Belgium, and I believe in other countries as well.
I think your Lordships should sympathise with the view that it is absolutely necessary nowadays to consider every possible means for reducing the heavy loss of life on the road. I firmly believe that any experiment, whatever it may be, should be tried, and will be tried, to see whether the results would justify the adoption of such means to prevent accidents. I think that all the new regulations which are made from time to time are purely experiments, and no doubt we are bound to get very violent differences of opinion as to whether those experiments are right or wrong. I should remind your Lordships that, when hooting was first prohibited at night, every single motoring organisation and organisation connected with the trade was opposed to that ban, with the exception of one, single company. Now I am told that the whole of the motoring authorities and organisations in this country are in universal agreement with what the Minister has done.
I should only repeat, in conclusion, in answer to the question of my noble friend, that any application from a local authority—and up till now there has been no such application—will be considered entirely on its merits. I hope that my noble friend will not go to a Division on the Motion that he has placed on the Paper. It appears to me that with his knowledge and experience not only of the motor industry but equally of driving, he should be the first to welcome any
1078
suggestion or any experiment that would do something to reduce the terrible human slaughter on the roads. I was surprised that my noble friend should take such a violent opposition to the Minister's proposal when, as I have endeavoured to point out, in other countries of the world the scheme is working with outstanding success. My noble friend Lord Elton, who gave your Lordships some indications of advertisements for motor horns, has raised a question which is of some interest, and I shall certainly, as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has suggested, bring the whole of that matter to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I hope I have answered the questions that have been addressed me, and I trust the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Motion.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will bear with me for just a minute while I endeavour to reply to one or two of the points which have been made in reference to my Motion. First of all I should like to thank the noble Earl who has replied on behalf of the Government for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the whole question; but I may say at once that the whole question to my mind hinges upon the expression "favourable consideration." I am all for consideration. I am all for any experiment being considered, and carefully considered, any experiment that may offer a change of saving life; but what frightened and alarmed a great many people in this country was the expression "favourable consideration," which seemed to me to mean that almost automatic approval would be given to any application made to the Minister in this respect.
There is a further point which I should have mentioned to your Lordships before in connection with this matter. Within the course of questions and answers in the House of Commons, to which the noble Earl has referred, the Minister further stated, in reply to a supplementary question, that he was not going to erect any signs to warn drivers when they were entering an area in which horn-blowing was prohibited. In that case the position would really be impossible from the point of view of drivers coming to a zone the extent of which they do not know. In the case of London, the

1079
Minister suggested the zone should always have the benefit of the doubt, but you never can tell when some sudden emergency is going to arise when the horn becomes absolutely necessary. I should like to make it clear, as it does not seem to be quite clear to some members of your Lordships' House—for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to imagine that I was one of those drivers who are in the habit of driving on the horn. I hardly ever make use of the horn.
LORD ELTON: I am very sorry if I gave that impression. It was far from my intention to make any reference to the driving of the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: I accept the correction, but I should like to make it quite clear that I am not one of the drivers who drive on the horn. I very seldom use my horn. I go from day's end to day's end and never use the horn, but to be told I am not to have any discretion as to when to use it, to be told I am not to use it in certain areas if I deem it to be necessary, creates an impossible position. Should such a situation ever arise I know exactly what I shall do, and I shall be quite ready to justify myself. I think it is such a pity, when we have this very important discussion on public safety, that the attitude of people should be misrepresented. Why was it necessary in this terribly important matter for the right reverend Prelate to import, as it seemed to me he did—I hope he will forgive me for saying so—pure prejudice into this important discussion? It is not a question of speed. There is always a minority of people in any community who will offend against their fellows. They are not confined to motor drivers. Pedestrians and cyclists, indeed every section of road users, have a certain number who are of course impossible, and must be dealt with properly; but what we are out to consider is what best to do to deal with the situation.
I mentioned in the course of my remarks that if one found a little child toddling into the road in front of one, the use of the horn might be absolutely necessary to save the child's life. That is not an extravagant assumption, far from it. The right reverend Prelate knows perfectly well that one can be driving at ten or fifteen miles an hour perfectly safely under the conditions pre-
1080
vailing—I dare say he has done it himself before now—when some person, an old person or a little child, or someone who is blind, steps into the road unexpectedly. And never let the Minister forget the difficulties of those who are blind or infirm of sight. They can only depend on the horn to save themselves. A case like that may arise and the horn may be the only way of saving the individual's life. The right reverend Prelate would be the first to sound his horn in such circumstances, and he would not like it suggested, when he did so, that it was merely done to clear the way and make it easier for the speedy motorist.
I mentioned a few figures to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred, and he seemed to think that I thought the motoring organisations should have been consulted in this matter. I did not really advance such a proposition at all. What I did suggest was that you have got statutory bodies like the Transport Advisory Council and the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I consider that these bodies should be consulted, at any rate, before the ban is imposed. I do not know if the noble Earl has anything to say on that point, whether before an experiment is made in any area the Minister will consult with these two important bodies. The Minister was asked the definite question relating to London in another place, whether if any London borough chose to make application he would give it favourable consideration, and he said so. I do not know what the implication of that is, whether it means automatic agreement—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought I made it clear that it did not mean automatic agreement. When a local authority applies to the Minister to have this ban imposed in its particular area during the whole day, the Minister will take the matter upon its merits and examine it before giving a definite answer. I think that would be answering the question of what is meant by taking the matter into favourable consideration.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This is really a very important point. The noble Earl is giving a slightly different interpretation to what the Minister of Transport has done. In Ministerial phraseology "I will consider" means he is going to turn it down; "I will carefully consider" means it is in

1081
the balance; "I will consider on its merits" means it is in the balance also; and lastly "I will favourably consider" has always been accepted as meaning acquiescence. The noble Earl says that this favourable consideration by the Minister of Transport is really consideration on its merits. That is all we ask for.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I, before my noble friend replies, ask him if he does not think that the fact that the local authority representing the inhabitants of the district has put it forward is a matter that requires the favourable consideration of any Minister?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Hear, hear.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, take the point just advanced by the noble Viscount. In the London areas there is a statutory body charged with the duty of looking after London transport—the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Surely the noble Viscount would not urge that the Minister should take an application from one portion of the London area and go right over the head of the London Traffic Advisory Committee? Observe that the London Traffic Advisory Committee and the Transport Advisory Council are both composed of the greatest experts that the Minister has been able to gather together to advise him in such matters as these. They include the Police and representatives of the local authorities themselves and of all the great traffic interests. Every body pretty well is represented on these two Committees who could possibly be of assistance. Surely the noble Viscount would not urge that the Minister should go over the heads of important bodies such as these?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl has been good enough to put a question to me. I have never urged anything of the kind he suggests. I said I was a little frightened by the list of the Committees which my noble friend thinks the Minister must consult before he comes to any decision. Personally, as long as he is Minister, I am content that he should exercise his discretion as to what inquiries he should make before he arrives at a final decision.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not want to add to the discussion which, I am sure, has gone on too long already. I would like again to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I realise that the importance which I attached to the expression "favourable" was perhaps overdone. It appears now, from what the noble Earl has told us, that it meant "consideration on its merits." With that I am perfectly satisfied. I would again urge, with all the emphasis I can command, that before the Minister goes in for any experiment such as this it should be most carefully thought out both as to its extent and as to the locality where it is tried out. I personally am extremely nervous of interfering with the discretion of the driver. That is the only point in my mind. With regard to other questions raised in the debate, such as ribbon development, I agree they are of vital importance, but, as they were not included in the Question on the Order Paper, I did not refer to them. I thank the Minister very much indeed, and I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past six o'clock.