§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jessel.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 [Exemption of steersmen from certain provisions as to issue of licences]:
THE LORD CHAIRMANThere are no Amendments on the Paper, but Lord Bertie of Thame has handed in two manuscript Amendments. The first is to Clause 1, on page 1, at line 7, and he proposes, after the words "Road Traffic Act, 1930," to insert "hereafter referred to as the principal Act."
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMETo save expense I thought it advisable to hand in this Amendment in manuscript. It is for the purpose of drawing attention to the lax drafting of the Bill. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3, on page 2, at line 30, you will see these words "under Part I of the principal Act." Yet nowhere in the Bill is the principal Act defined. I think it is usual in Bills, when the principal Act is going to be referred to, to put in these words in the beginning in the way which I now suggest; but in this case I understand there are certain objections on the ground that the Bill may be lost, although this is merely a drafting Amendment, and therefore I shall not press it. At the same time I think that the Government might see that the drafting of Bills in the other House is more perfect, more especially as this Bill comes from a Private Member who is not an expert in drafting.
§ LORD JESSELI am very grateful to the noble Viscount for not moving his Amendment now because, as your Lordships are well aware, it would place the Bill in jeopardy if an Amendment is made here and the Bill has to go back to another place. At the same time I think there is a great deal in the Amendment.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Bill reported without amendment.
§ House adjourned at five o'clock.