HL Deb 09 June 1953 vol 182 cc730-46

2.43 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Reflectors to be carried by vehicles at night

(8) This section shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3) to omit all words after "on," and to insert: such date not earlier than the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, as the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this and other Amendments on the Order Paper, I feel that I should offer the most sincere and humble apologies to your Lordships for not having been present at an earlier sage in the passage of this Bill through this House. It was through no fault of my own: I had to be abroad at an international conference, where I had the honour to represent this country, and it was quite impossible for me to attend your Lordships' House.

With the objects of this Bill, naturally, every one of us must be in sympathy, but it is a remarkable fact that neither in another place nor in this House have any figures been given to justify the introduction of this measure into either House of Parliament. The noble Lord who has moved the Report stage of this Bill has not felt able so far to give us any figures to indicate the extent of the danger which presumably this Bill seeks to remove. I studied the Hansard Report of the debates in another place, both on Committee stage, and on Report and Third Reading, and I have been able to discover no figures. In another place the discussion centred largely on the danger caused by commercial vehicles. With all that I have the greatest possible sympathy, and there is everything to be said for this Bill. I am trying to help the discussion a little by indicating my attitude, and in my remarks on my further Amendments I shall endeavour not to repeat what I have already said.

The only figures that have been given to us to justify this Bill are those given by the Road Research Board and the Ministry of Transport Return of Accidents for 1951. The Road Research Board tell us that there have been 3,400 cases of personal injury in a year due to inadequate or inefficient rear lights. But what they do not tell us is that nearly half of those casualties concerned pedal cyclists, and not motor vehicles at all. As a matter of fact, to the best of my information the casualties due to motor vehicles having inadequate or inefficient rear lights were about 1,750 in a year. That is a terrible figure, but we have to remember the enormous number of motor vehicles on the roads—upwards of 5 million to-day, and growing at a rate of roughly 300,000 a year.

The Ministry of Transport Road Accidents Return gives quite a different picture. That Return states that in one year there were 690 accidents where there was either an inadequate light or no light at all, and that 107 private cars, 41 motor cyclists, 210 goods vehicles, 46 unknown mechanically propelled vehicles and 200 pedal cyclists were involved. That, according to one Government Department, is the extent of the menace to be removed by this Bill. Only 107 private cars were involved, yet it is now proposed to make cars carry two rear lights. To-day, so far as I know, all new cars produced have two rear lights, yet it is proposed to make all cars on the roads—many of them owned and used by people of very slender means—carry two rear lights. It will put owners to a good deal of expense—and the numbers involved run literally into millions. Of the 5 million vehicles on the roads, it is probably true to say that at least 3 million will be affected by this Bill. The figure may be larger than that, but I want to be on the safe side.

The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Government, was a member of the Alness Committee. I always regard the Alness Committee as the finest Committee that was ever set up to deal with anything to do with the motoring world. They examined with the greatest possible care every argument that could be put forward on any topic connec- ted with road safety, or any other problem connected with the motoring world. I always take off my hat to the Alness Committee and every one of its members. As a matter of fact, I had the honour to appear before them and to be questioned by them, and they were absolutely first-class. What they did not know, at the end of their deliberations on this matter, about road safety and everything associated with it was not worth knowing. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, was a member of the Alness Committee, and he will know that they made no recommendation to the effect that motor vehicles should have two reflectors. Your Lordships will be aware that, as I have said, every motor vehicle produced to-day is provided with two rear lights. But the Bill goes further than that. Incidentally, on this question of rear lights I should like to point out that nowhere in the Bill is there any mention of whether the rear lights should bewired up in parallel or in series. That is a point which perhaps could be dealt with by administrative means, but it would certainly make a considerable difference.

I have just said that the Bill goes further than providing for two rear lights. It goes on to tell all motorists that they should have reflectors as well as lights on the back of their motor vehicles. Well, my Lords, we have had experience of reflectors, and we know that, like lights, they are liable to be covered by mud and dust. We know that we have an enthusiastic police force in every county in the British Isles. We know, further, how easy it is for the police to bring a successful prosecution against a person because his rear light is covered with mud or dust. That, of course, can also happen in connection with these reflectors. We know that reflectors fitted to bicycles were no good at all; we know that reflectors fitted to any sort of vehicle are perfectly useless under ordinary conditions where you have lights meeting you, and so on. Nothing is really a substitute for a rear light. So much for the Alness Committee. They made, as I say, no recommendation that we should have reflectors, though they did say that we should have two rear lights.

Then came the Metropolitan Police Report on Road Accidents in 1951, which made no mention of any trouble arising from the absence or inadequacy of rear lights. It seems to me that, before we go to the extent of passing legislation through Parliament in order to compel the use of rear lights and reflectors, we ought to be assured that the need is there. I agree that 1,750 accidents from this cause is a very serious figure, and one that should certainly receive attention; but are we really going the right way about it? I am sure that everyone with experience of roads in this country will agree that the lighting of commercial vehicles leaves very much to he desired and that many accidents have occurred from this cause. We all know the difficulties which arise, especially when overtaking a vehicle, through inadequate rear lighting of lorries. On the other hand it seems to me—and other noble Lords may have had the same experience—that about the best-seen object on the road at night is a pair of nylon stockings. Perhaps we might take that idea alittle further, and provide that, in addition to their lights, commercial vehicles should have the back painted a light colour, preferably white. That would certainly be doing something to improve road conditions at night. Before we pass this Bill we ought to be satisfied by those who are behind it that it meets the need. No doubt they can produce figures which would show that. We must remember that it places an expenditure which is estimated by the Road Research Board at 15s. on the owner of every motor vehicle not already fitted with two rear lights. Fifteen shillings may sound very little to many of your Lordships, but it is a very appreciable sum to a good many vehicle owners, who are already paying a high rate of taxation for having the vehicle on theroads at all. Do not let us delude ourselves into the thought that motor vehicles are to-day the preserve of the rich man: they are not. In many cases they are owned by wage earners, and one is delighted that that is so; it is good that people should be able to get out and enjoy the countryside. But this 15s. will mean art extra burden for them to bear—and this in days of continually rising prices.

The effect of this Amendment is to postpone until 1956 the coming into operation of the Act, and to leave it to the Minister to prescribe the actual date it shall come into full operation. The reason I have put down the Amendment is that I want to give all concerned a little further time to think over the matter. I am thinking of the Minister and the authorities who will be concerned. I believe that we shall have to give attention to commercial vehicles and to pedal cyclists. We shall not solve this problem by telling two or three million motor car owners that they must find, according to the Road Research Board (and I think the Road Research Board are optimistic in their figure), a further 15s. I think the figure is likely to be greater. I should like to see a delay imposed so that the Minister, the Research Board, the police and other parties—who perhaps so far have given little enough attention to the problem—may have time to think about it. Above all, I beg that the Government will bear in mind that no case has been made out, in either House, for this Bill. It has obviously been regarded by those behind it as necessary, but I do not think they have made out a case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will give careful consideration to the arguments I have submitted and that he will demonstrate to us, if he can, that it is really necessary to have this Bill, and that it is necessary to have it at the present moment. I hope that, even at this eleventh hour, it may be possible to provide for the delay which I suggest in this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("on") to end of line 2, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)

2.50 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not go into all the points which he made in moving this Amendment. I am sorry he was not here when we had the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, because had he been here then he would now be aware that at least one of the points which he complains has not been dealt with was in fact dealt with. He said that no figures had been given in either House to justify this measure. May I point out to the noble Earl that on May 7, in the debate on the Second Reading, I used these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 182, Col. 336): But when I tell your Lordships that research has shown that some 3,400 casualties a year are caused, in whole or in part, by inadequate tail lights or rear lighting of road vehicles, your Lordships may think it right to give your support to a measure which I do not say will eliminate all these accidents but certainly will tend to decrease them. That is what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill; and that is, in the main, its justification. It will, of course, cost people who own cars a little extra to put on a second light. The noble Earl is quite right: new cars nearly always have two red rear lights, but the cost of fitting the extra light to other vehicles has been estimated at about 15s. That is somewhat less than what one would now have to pay for four gallons of petrol. I do not think it is unreasonable, when accidents are being caused by lack of rear lights—accidents which may affect not only the back of the car which has not got them but also the front of a car which drives into another car which has not got them, and which, moreover, may well injure the drivers or these people who have to pay this extra 15s. I submit that it is a good insurance for them, an insurance that they ought to be willing, if they own a car, to undertake for the benefit of their fellow road users.

After those preliminary matters, may I come to the noble Earl's Amendment? In the Bill as it stands, the provision requiring the reflectors on the back of the car is to come into operation on the first day of October, 1954. The Motor Manufacturers' Association have agreed that there are plenty of these reflectors, and cars can all be fitted by that date. The principal users' organisations, through the Standing Committee of the A.A., the R.A.C. and the Scottish R.A.C., have all agreed that that is a suitable date, and so the point of the noble Earl's Amendment would be merely to defer something which it seems to me should not be deferred if it is going to prevent some of these accidents on the roads. It can be done by this time: fitting two red rear reflectors on the car does not take long. It will not cost much and if it is going to save some of these appalling road casualties on our roads, I ask your Lordships not to defer the date on which it shall come into operation.

3.3 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I think there is something to be said for the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that I thought this was a piece of legislation which was not properly conceived and which only added confusion to an already confused Statute, the Statute controlling the behaviour and use of vehicles upon the roads. On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that one of the causes of accidents, of collision through bad rear lighting, was not the design of the lighting on a motor car at the present time but the fact that the lighting regulations were not properly enforced. I ventured also to say that we should soon get to the stage of having motor vehicles dazzling from the rear with red lights as much as we are dazzled in the front with white lights. We support the Bill, as I said then, on the ground that anything that will mitigate road accidents should be supported. The toll is desperate, and it is growing. But let this be said: if this added legislation is not enforced with any greater strictness than the existing legislation regarding vehicle lighting, it will be an abject failure.

One of the things that I have always protested against—I think I can use the same language again—is cluttering up the Statutes with more regulations, when those already on the Statute Book are not enforced. One has only to drive along the main roads of this country to-day to see old and dilapidated vehicles with hardly any rear lights at all. I cited a case in your Lordships' House where I followed an old and dilapidated commercial vehicle for many miles. When it pulled up in a market place, I went to examine the rear light because I had not seen it. I found that the connection was hanging down; it was covered in mud, and must have been hanging down for years. If these reflectors, which will get mud-bespattered and dusty, are left in this condition, or if the lights are left as they are at the present time, this Bill will not do very much good.

My other criticism of the Bill is that it does not deal sufficiently with the greatest menace on the roads at night, the commercial vehicle with the unwieldy load, the overhanging load, the 60 ft. vehicle. I am sorry that the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, and the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, are not here; they are two of the biggest culprits in the matter of having huge and unwieldy loads carried along at night without proper illumination, not only for the rear but for the side as well. This Bill does hardly anything to mitigate that danger. I feel, therefore, that there is something to be said for the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. If it is desired to reduce the number of accidents caused by bad rear illumination of vehicles, you will go a long way to stop it by a greater enforcement of the law as it stands to-day without, as the noble Earl has said, causing these hundreds of thousands of vehicles to have two rear lights and two rear reflectors.

However, on balance, if we are to have this provision in, we may as well bring it in at the date of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House will support the Bill, and I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, because we should find ourselves in the position of supporting the Bill as it stands. I think those responsible will have a great deal of difficulty in enforcing this provision. I think there will be a great deal of difficulty in getting the reflectors on to these vehicles in time, and therefore the Minister may need to nave second thoughts at some future time and may have to bring in a regulation to postpone the date. But I agree with what the noble Earl has said: that this provision will not help to reduce the number of road accidents caused by had rear lighting unless it is enforced more strictly than the existing law is to-day.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, not often do I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but this time I can hardly agree with one single word he has said. I believe that the rear reflectors are a very good additional factor for safety. I see no reason at all for putting off for two years any factor of safety, anything that is going to reduce accidents on our roads. I hope that he will not press his first Amendment. As everybody seems to be dealing with his Second Amendment at the same time, may I just say, particularly in relation to what the noble Earl said about reflectors, that I cannot agree, I have just come back from a fortnight in Germany, where I drove something like 1,500 miles, a great many of them at night. Every commercial vehicle had not only two reflectors at the back but also a swinging reflector, which hung under the chassis on a strip of metal and swung from side to side, according to the movement of the vehicle. One might miss all the other reflectors; one might miss the tail light, but that swinging light caught the eye at once. I must admit that I saw one or two vehicles without tail lights, but the reflectors were such that I saw them every time. I hope that the use of two reflectors will be made compulsory, that the tail lights will be made compulsory, and that this will be in 1954 and not in 1956.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what has been said. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already said, everything depends upon the enforcement of the law. It is perfectly true that to-day the law is really not enforced. I imagine that the unfortunate police forces of the country, under strength, as we know they are in many areas, are probably finding it very difficult to send their officers out on to the roads at night. That may be one reason—I do not know. But whatever the reason, there is a general lack of enforcement of the law. The Road Research Board have issued what is called Technical Paper No. 25, of which no doubt the noble Lord has a copy, in which there is a picture of a motor car with a completely inadequate rear lighting system. That is very carefully gone into on page 6 of that document. There is no doubt that if the law were enforced conditions would be a good deal better than they are. But page 18 of the same document, the Road Research Technical Paper No. 25, recites that 80 per cent. of the cycles, and 60 per cent. of the commercial vehicles, on the road had rear lights of less than one-tenth of the light considered to be necessary for efficient lighting. That is under the present system. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin said, in the few remarks which he made to us, that he would not guarantee that this Bill will prevent all accidents of this sort at night. It will not—that we know perfectly well. This is only tinkering with the thing. There are already 3,000 offences that every one of us can commit on the highway. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has thought of that. I hope he will not himself suffer under this by committing the 3,001st.

There it is. I hold very strongly the view that this Bill merely tinkers with the problem. The problem is a far bigger one than can be solved by this Bill. I am afraid that by Parliament's passing this Bill people will get the idea that things are going to be all for the best on the roads; that they have done quite a lot. There is only one thing that will make things better on the roads of this country and reduce casualties. Every one of your Lordships who has experience knows perfectly well that it is the fact that we have got to improve the roads of this country. Chief constables have written to me about roads in this country which they call death traps, yet nothing is done. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said he would support anything which would reduce the ghastly toll of the roads. I hope that we shall get a lot of support from him when pressing for a real road system, in which I know he is interested from the point of view of the great association to which he belongs. I have listened to what was said. I do not know whether it would be the wish of your Lordships that this Bill should come into operation on the day indicated in the Bill, but so far the weight of speakers has been against me and perhaps I had better withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Increase in number of rear red lights to be carried by vehicles at night]:

3.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, before moving the first Amendment standing in my name, I should like to repeat what I said at an earlier stage of this Bill—namely, that Her Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the Bill and accord to it complete support. It was good of Lord Howe to refer to my membership of the Alness Committee, but he was quite wrong in assuming that I had official charge of this Bill, which, as it is a Private Member's Bill, is entirely in the hands of Lord Llewellin. This Amendment is consequential on the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The words proposed to be left out authorise the front light and the rear light required to be carried on the nearside of motorcycle side-cars and on some horse-drawn vehicles to be combined, and will be unnecessary if, as a result of the new clause, general provision is made authorising the combination of separate lamps when a single lamp will fulfil all the statutory requirements. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("carried") to end of line 6 on page 4.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, as I understand it, when this House put in an Amendment that where a motorcycle had to carry a light shining white in front and red to the rear, it was intended that that light need not be two separate lamps but could be one lamp, so long as provision was made for it to shine white in front and red rearward. As I understand it, it was then felt that there were other classes of vehicles to which that could equally apply—everybody thought we had made such a sensible Amendment that the provision ought to be made more general. I gather that that is the purpose of the Amendment which the noble Earl will move later. Just as he, quite rightly, told the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I was in charge of this Bill and not he, it is equally clear that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, is in charge of these Amendments and not I. As the noble Lord responsible for this Bill, all I say is that I am very ready to accept them all and to thank the Ministry of Transport for their energy in this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Rear lights on vehicles with projecting or overhanging loads]:

3.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, like the last Amendment this Amendment is consequential upon the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The subsection proposed to be left out authorises the lamps required to mark loads projecting to the rear or laterally to be combined with other lamps. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question before we agree to this Amendment? I gather that it is a consequential Amendment that comes before the new clause. Am I to understand that the new clause will enable the Minister to make regulations affecting the lighting of road vehicles with which Clause 3 deals? Clause 3 (1) states: Where a vehicle on a road during the hours of darkness carries a load projecting to the rear more than three and a half feet behind its tail light, it shall carry a rear lamp in such a position that no part of the load projects to the rear more than three and a half feet behind that rear lamp. That is the type of vehicle in which I am interested, because the load may project more than three and a half feet; there are cases in which it may project fifteen feet or sixteen feet aft of the standard rear light. Do I understand that the new clause will give the Minister power to propose regulations not only to have a rear light on that projecting load but also to have lights along the side of it to show the length of the overhang from the vehicle?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I am afraid I do not quite understand the noble Lord's point. What does he mean by lights down the side of the vehicle as well as at the rear? I do not quite follow him, I am afraid.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, as I understood the noble Earl, when he gave his explanation he said that the lights could be not only the statutory rear light but also lights that showed the length of the projection. These vehicles have got to carry two red lights—the standard red light on the vehicle and the standard red light at the end of the projection. My question is with regard to the placing of lights on either side of the projection. Will the Minister have power, under the new clause, to enforce such illumination?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I understand that the light is on the end of the projection; it will not show the length of the load.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Does that mean that the Minister has no power under the new clause to put forward a regulation which will ensure that the length of the projection is illuminated?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I am not quite clear on that point, and I should not like to give an answer at random now. I will look into the matter and let the noble Lord have an answer later.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I thank the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. Like the two previous deletions, this Amendment is consequential on the proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 4. The subsection proposed to be left out would have amended a prevision of the 1927 Act dealing with lamps on some horse-drawn vehicles showing both to the front and to the rear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (6).—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.24 p.m.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:

Multi-purpose lamps

".—(1) Nothing in the principal Act or this Act shall require a vehicle to carry separate lamps for different purposes, if it carries a lamp satisfying all the requirements which would be applicable to separate lamps carried by it for those purposes.

(2) The Minister's power to make regulations as to the position in which lamps carried for the purpose of subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act are to be attached to the vehicle shall include power to make special provision, as respects any class or description of vehicle, as to the position in which a lamp carried for the purposes both of paragraph (a) and of paragraph (b) of that subsection is to be attached; and in a case for which special provision is so made the reference in the foregoing subsection to the requirements which would be applicable to separate lamps shall not include the requirements of any regulations as to the position of a separate lamp carried for the purposes of the said paragraph (a) or (b).

(3) Paragraph (i) of section six of the principal Act is hereby repealed.

(4) This section shall came into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-four."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will move this next Amendment as briefly as I can. This new clause has become necessary because, in the course of examining the consequences of the Bill, a larger number of cases than expected were encountered where the combination of lamps fulfilling different purposes into single units would be desirable when the provisions come into operation. The principal Act, as well as this Bill, had previously referred specifically to a few individual cases of such combination. Subsection (1) now provides in general terms that separate lamps need not be carried for different purposes where a single lamp would satisfy all the requirements of the Act for these different purposes. It thus supersedes provisions contained in the 1927 Act and in the Bill authorising combined purpose lamps in certain specific cases only—that is to say on some horse-drawn vehicles, motor-bicycle sidecars and projecting and overhanging loads.

Subsection (2) provides that, as regards any class or description of vehicle, where a combined lamp cannot comply as to position with the ordinary requirements for such lamps, and the Minister considers that in that instance special provision for a combined lamp is desirable, he may make separate regulations as to its position which could for it replace the general ones. This power might be exercised in the case of such vehicles as agricultural tractors and agricultural trailers and other vehicles of specialised design which are not ordinarily used on roads at night to any great extent. Subsection (3) makes an amendment in the principal Act which is consequential on the powers conferred by subsection (1) of the clause. Subsection (4) provides for the clause to come into operation on October 1, 1954, which is the same date as is contained in Clause 1, which deals with reflectors. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. It is a further consequential Amendment following on the new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 3, leave out ("section one, two or three") and insert ("any section").—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.28 p.m.

EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:

Interpretation

".In this Act the word "vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or a trailer so constructed or adapted."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to limit the scope of the Bill to commercial vehicles. Many of the arguments which can be advanced on this question have already been mentioned by me to your Lordships, and I trust that you will forgive me if I repeat myself to this extent. The main trouble on the roads of this country at night arises from the commercial vehicle and from the cyclist. A large porportion of the casualties referred to by Lord Llewellin—though he did not tell us this at any stage of the Bill—are due to cyclists, that is to say to the bad lighting of bicycles. They are not due to the bad lighting of motor cars. If we mean business, we ought to deal with the bicycle and the commercial vehicle. I have already ventured to submit that to tell some 3 million motor car owners that they must go to the trouble and expense—it may be nothing to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but it is a considerable outlay for many of the smaller people, owners of old and second-hand cars and the like—of having a second rear light and reflectors fitted to their cars is not going to make them thank the noble Lord for his effort in bringing them under this Bill.

On the other hand, there is no doubt—and this can be borne out by anyone who has experience in these matters—that commercial vehicles using the roads of this country are not adequately lighted at the present time. I do not know whether any of your Lordships are in the habit of passing along A.5. That is the main road between the docks and the Midlands, and if your Lordships will traverse it at about three o'clock in the morning you will be able to realise what the rear lighting problem is in this country. I suggest that if under this Bill we can get the commercial vehicle properly lit, we shall go a long way towards achieving the result at which the Bill aims. I should have liked to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, a word as to the Government's attitude with regard not only to this matter but to the previous one, but it seems that I am unlucky, because the noble Earl has vanished. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot accept on behalf of the promoters of the Bill the suggestion made by the noble Earl. His Amendment would mean that these improvements would be made to goods vehicles only and would exclude all types of passenger vehicle, including tractors; and these extra lighting facilities are as necessary on vehicles such as tractors as on any other type of vehicle. The noble Earl has said that he would like to hear what the Minister had to say. As my noble friend Lord Birkenhead is not here, perhaps I may be allowed to read this sentence: The Minister cannot accent the proposition that the additional safeguards which Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to provide should apply only in the case of goods vehicles and not in the case of tractors or passenger vehicles. Perhaps it is appropriate that I should read that sentence, which is, as it purports to be, from a document provided to me by the Ministry. However, let me console the noble Earl. He complained about the 3,000 offences which he or I or anybody else driving a motor vehicle may commit on the road. I do not know whether any of his cars are provided with such a light, but I have a reversing white light on my car which comes on when a I reverse either by night or by day. At the present moment that is illegal. Clause 4 of the Bill will make such a light legal. As the noble Earl always has the most modern type of car, I suspect that we shall be taking away one of the offences which he, like myself, may now inadvertently commit by reversing during the hours of darkness.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I do not know whether I may say a word in reply to what has just been said by the noble Lord. I am unlucky. The noble Lord has a reversing light, but none of my cars has one. I will satisfy him there. We have had an ipse dixit from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but we still have not heard from the Government about this matter. I feel we might have had just a word about the Government's views, not necessarily with regard to the present but with regard to the future. When I said "commercial vehicle" I had in mind the motor coach. I am sure that noble Lords interested in agriculture will he interested to know that tractors will require two rear lights and a reflector. I do not know what the agricultural community think of this. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, here and he has some interest in agriculture. I do not know whether he welcomes the provision that tractors should have two rear lights and a reflector. I still have not heard the Government's view, but I am afraid I cannot say any more about the matter.

On Question, Amendment negatived.