Lords Sitting of 17 February 1955

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

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  3.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 6:
  Amendment of safety provisions of 23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 53
  6.—(1) The grounds on which a licence under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, may be revoked or suspended under subsection (1) of section thirteen of that Act (which provides for the revocation or suspension of such a licence on the ground that any of the conditions of the licence have not been complied with) shall include the ground that the holder of the licence or any servant or agent of his has, in relation to an authorised vehicle, been convicted of contravening or failing to comply with any statutory provision (however expressed) relating to—
  (a) the maintenance of vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, or
  (4) In this section the expression "authorised vehicle" means, in relation to a licence under the said Act of 1933, a vehicle authorised to be used thereunder, whether or not it is for the time being in use for a purpose for which such a licence is required.
  LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), after "vehicle," where that word first occurs, to insert:
  "belonging to the holder of the licence or in his possession under a hire-purchase agreement,"
  The noble Lord said: This clause deals with various reasons for which the holder of a commercial vehicle licence may have his licence withdrawn or suspended. Amongst other reasons mentioned is a previous conviction as servant or agent for an offence named in the clause to do with an authorised vehicle—that is, a commercially licensed vehicle. Unfortunately,
  178
  this also covers the case where a servant or agent has been convicted whilst in previous employment, the present licence holder not knowing that there has been such a conviction and being in no position to find out about it. My Amendment is designed to put this point right. It restricts the loss or suspension of licence to the employer to those cases where the servant or agent has been convicted for an offence to do with a vehicle owned by the present employer, the licence holder, or which he operates under hire purchase agreement. It seems clear to me that the wording of the clause as it stands is so unfair that it cannot be the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the position I have indicated should arise. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 15, after ("vehicle") insert the said words.—(Lord Derwent.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this Amendment. I hope he will not mind my saying that I did not understand it from the Amendment which he put down. I do not think the Amendment will achieve the object which he has in view. So far as I can see, he confines the cases of possible convictions to which he has made reference to vehicles belonging to the holder or in his possession under hire purchase. I had taken that to mean that he did not want to include vehicles which were hired or possibly loaned to him. I now understand what the noble Lord has in mind, although I feel bound to say that somebody who deliberately takes on a man with a known bad record of driving vehicles might not be without at least some measure of responsibility.
  I am quite prepared to look at this matter to see whether we can make it clear that the offences here referred to, or the circumstances in which they are referred to, can properly arise only in regard to occasions when the driver is in the employ of the holder of the licence. I am bound to admit that it is a thin case, and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me because, if he observes the proviso, he will see these words:
  "Provided that the licensing authority shall not revoke or suspend a licence … unless he is satisfied, after holding a public inquiry if the holder of the licence requests him so to do …"

  179
  I think that in the course of that public inquiry it would become abundantly clear that, for offences committed not in the present employer's employ, it would be unfair that any suspension should take place. I think it is a very remote contingency but I readily accept that there is a possible interpretation which should be investigated. If, on those conditions, the noble Lord could withdraw this Amendment, I should be grateful.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, would the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in the consideration of this matter which he has promised, take these two factors into account? First, an endorsement upon a driving licence can be obliterated from the driving licence in two years although the record is still there. Therefore, a man can present his new employer with a perfectly clean licence unless the employer is not only himself going to subject every prospective applicant for employment to a categorical examination but is also going to apply to the police for his past record. Secondly, I beg that at a public inquiry a man's past will not be raked up—whether or not he has been convicted of so many prosecutions—in such a way as to jeopardise his chance of future employment. I ask the noble Earl to take those factors into consideration because they sprang to my mind immediately upon hearing the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, move his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I readily accept what the noble Lord has said. It is a perfectly proper point. The purpose of the public inquiry is to examine two points: the frequency of such convictions with various vehicles in the control of the holder of the licence or, alternatively, the wilful disregard of these most important considerations, which the noble Lord will see in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1)—whether the licensing authority consider that they have been wilfully or frequently violated. In that sense, the previous record of the conduct of the business is bound in some measure to come under examination, but I agree with the noble Lord that it would be most undesirable that an individual should have his long record thrown open to public examination.
  EARL HOWE: I hope it will not be forgotten by the House that the present law relating to heavy vehicles is simply disregarded by everybody on the road. The Road Research Board have given the figure that 94 per cent. of the drivers of heavy vehicles which are subject to the 20 m.p.h. limit, as it is to-day, completely disregard it. On the whole, from the point of view of the country, it is probably a good thing they do, but it might at any moment be possible for the police to start operations to try to enforce a law which I think even the Government agree is really unworkable. I suggest that that might be borne in mind, because drivers might easily, as we all know, exceed the 20 m.p.h. limit, thereby ipso facto breaking the law. As the law relating to heavy vehicles is in such a complete mess at the moment, it seems to me that this Amendment requires careful consideration. I was glad to hear what the noble Earl said. His generally sympathetic attitude towards the Amendment is to be welcomed, but, as it stands, the law relating to heavy commercial vehicles, as those of us who know anything about it (including, I know, the Government) realise, is quite unworkable.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making; we come to it later. Here, two stages are involved. There is conviction in individual cases, and subsequently, if that should happen frequently, there may be suspension of the licence, which is, of course, a very serious matter and certainly would not be undertaken by the licensing authority unless they were well satisfied that it was fully justified—in other words, that the person concerned was not suitable to be charged with the responsibility for a licence. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
  LORD DERWENT: The only difference between us is that I believe the danger to the licence holder could be more real and more serious than my noble friend is prepared to agree. But, as I understand it, he is going to look at this point again and I presume he wishes to meet the point behind my Amendment. I take it that if he is able to do so, he will introduce a Government Amendment on the next stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) In the case of a goods vehicle used in connection with any business it shall not be necessary for the driver or the holder of a licence to keep or cause to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if and so long as there accompanies the vehicle on all journeys a certificate in the form set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act and the vehicle is being driven by the driver named in the said certificate and he is driving in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate; nothing in the immediately preceding sub-paragraph of this paragraph of this regulation shall—

  (i) exempt any person from keeping or causing to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if any goods vehicle used in connection with any business is so used on a journey any part of which lies outside a radius of 25 miles from the place where the vehicle is usually kept;

  (ii) exempt any person from keeping or causing to be kept the records prescribed by these regulations if any goods vehicle used in connection with any business is used on a journey, or at any time any part of which is not in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate;

  where any goods vehicle is used in connection with any business on a journey any part of which is otherwise than in accordance with and within the particulars set out in the said certificate, every driver shall keep and every holder of a licence shall cause to be kept the records prescribed by the other paragraphs of these regulations in respect of the whole of that journey, and there shall be added to the schedule to those regulations Form 5 being a certificate in accordance with the additional paragraph to the regulations contained in this subsection."
  The noble Lord said: Under the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations, 1935, all commercial vehicles not driven by the owner must have a log book, which has to be kept up to date, showing the journeys, hours of work, and that type of detail—a most proper and necessary regulation in the case of all long-distance driving. But there is one class of vehicle for which a log book has become something of a farce, and where the regulation creates a great deal of unnecessary work and wastes a lot of paper. I refer to local delivery vehicles, such as bakers' vans, butchers' vans and so on. In this class of vehicle the log book has an entry at the top of the page, and for subsequent dates has the word "ditto" written against it; it is a class of vehicle the log books of which are practically never looked at. These log books are entirely unnecessary as a day-to-day
  182
  record and as a rule serve no useful purpose, because the vehicles concerned do much the same round and much the same work day after day.
  The point of my Amendment, which is a long one, is simply this: that for this type of vehicle power should be given for the granting of a certificate. The specimen certificate I have in mind is dealt with in a later Amendment, following the Third Schedule. It would include the name of the owner, the name of the driver, the place where the vehicle is usually kept, the hours of work, the actual hours of the man's break in work, and absolutely essential details of that kind. The certificate would be all that was required for most days of the year, and would apply as long as the terms of the certificate were strictly adhered to and as long as the vehicle was in use within a 25-miles radius of its garage. On the odd days in the year when the terms of the certificate were not complied with, there would be an obligation to put the variations to the certificate down in the log book for that day. For example, the hours of work for a grocer's van might be from nine till five, with a break from one till two. Christmas Eve might be a difficult day and there might be late deliveries. The certificate would not then apply, and there would have to be an entry in the log book.
  The advantage of this system is, that if an inspector stops one of these local delivery vans and demands the certificate, he has only to read through what are the hours of work, where the van is kept, and so on, and he can see at once whether the van is working within the terms of the certificate. If it is not working within the terms of the certificate, then he looks at the log book. If the log book is not properly kept upon a variation from the certificate, then an offence has been committed. This system would save a tremendous amount of work; it would make things much easier for an inspector who stopped a vehicle of that kind, and it would save a great deal of paper. I suggest to my noble friend that this is a proper, practical way of running a check over local delivery vans. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The purpose of this Amendment is to prescribe the nature of the records which must be kept where a vehicle travels not more than twenty-five miles from its base. These records are, of course, concerned with hours of work, journeys, loads and other matters. I must emphasise that we attach considerable importance to these records as an essential means of control of the conditions of work; and on that account we regard them as an essential element in assisting safety on the roads. It is true that at the present time we are asking that the same records should be kept for delivery vans as for long-distance vehicles and others. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that there is a case for simplifying some of the C licence records in respect of vehicles which travel only a short distance. The noble Lord's suggestion excluded such things as the load, the nature of the journey, or the area, and the last occasion on which the man worked. Those are, however, factors which might have to be taken into consideration. I must make it quite clear, however, that the considerations I have mentioned do not apply in the ordinary way to A and B licences, and it would also be undesirable for simplification to take place in the case of long-distance C licences.
  I hope that what I am saying will meet the noble Lord's point in this matter. As a matter of fact, I rather doubt whether the twenty-five miles basis would be the correct way of dealing with this matter. But if we were able to do anything, it would be only in regard to a limited class of vehicles; and we should certainly not do anything until we had consulted the organisations of both the employees and the employers engaged in this work. I will see whether we can do something on this point, but I must point out that I think it is unnecessary for an Act of Parliament to specify the precise form in which these returns should be made. I think it would be rather inconvenient to stereotype it to that extent. I should also point out that there is a defect in the drafting of the Amendment, because in line 4, and again a little later on, it refers to "these regulations," and it is not clear what regulations are referred to. I believe that they are regulations made under Section 16 of the 1933 Act, but it would have to be made quite clear what reference was being made. Accordingly, I
  184
  hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. We will see whether we can meet the point.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for raising this matter, and to the noble Earl for the sound and conciliatory manner in which he has met the point. There is a point for consideration, but I am at one with him in saying that it has to be carefully considered. I would ask him to bear in mind, with regard to a C licence, that if the proprietor or the owner drives the van concerned, he does not have to keep a record when it is not carrying goods; it is only when the employee drives it that a record has to be kept. Let us look at the position of the village butcher. He may drive his van for some part of the day, and his assistant may drive it for the other part of the day. One has to keep a record of journeys and loads; the other does not. When the driver is self-employed he does not have to keep any records.
  I am at one with the noble Lord in thinking that it would be highly dangerous to bring A and B licences into this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, agrees. I feel, however, that there is a problem with C licences, because many C licence holders are one-man businesses. Then there is the man who has one assistant who drives the van; and there is, of course, the C licence where a number of people drive the van, so that it never has any settled driver. It would mean putting a heavy burden on these relatively small businesses, and (though I hesitate to put this into the mouth of the noble Lord), if inspectors were to turn up at perhaps 75 per cent. of such businesses they would find the records unintelligible. If the records could be made simple, so that they can be easily kept, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, would be very grateful.
  LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for saying that he will look into this matter, but may I just stress one point before asking leave to withdraw my Amendment. I believe that a certificate rather than the present log-book system, is very important in regard to hours of work. The certificate, I suggest, should state break-hours during the day, and, unless the

  185
  owner is driving that vehicle during those hours, that vehicle must not be on the road without some special mention of the fact in the log-book. That is one of the reasons why I believe a certificate is better with this type of vehicle than a logbook. However, in view of what my noble friend has said I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (4):
  "Provided that a dual purpose vehicle (which expression shall have the meaning assigned to it in subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act) shall be deemed not to be an authorised vehicle whilst for the time being adapted for the carriage of passengers and in use for a purpose for which a licence under the said Act of 1933 is not required."
  The noble Lord said: I now come to an Amendment which in my view is a very important one. I ask your Lordships to allow me, in the course of my argument upon this Amendment, to refer also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 99. This is a highly technical matter and I ask the indulgence of your Lordships. I will do my best to explain it as simply as I can—that is, if I really know it myself. This Amendment deals with the utility vehicle, station wagon, estate car, call it what you will; but for the purpose of this Bill I prefer to call it a utility vehicle. I ant forced to go into a little past history on this subject because I have a past in connection with it.
  Technically, any vehicle up to three tons unladen weight is, according to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a motor car. The motor car, as we know it, is a motor car constructed solely for the carriage of passengers, not exceeding seven excluding the driver. All the others are commercial vehicles or goods-carrying vehicles constructed solely for the carriage of goods or burdens. That was all right until 1934 when the enterprising motor industry conceived the idea of the dual purpose vehicle. Immediately that came on to the market it had so ready a sale that at this date there are about 80,000 of them in use in this country. I should think the large majority of noble Lords have one of their own; I see many outside your Lordships' House on occasion. As their numbers grew, confusion became worse confounded. What was this vehicle? Was it a passenger vehicle, and
  186
  therefore a motor car, or was it a goods-carrying vehicle and therefore subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit, as are all goods-carrying vehicles? Nobody could solve that problem, for the vehicle could be used for both purposes.
  The position arose that, throughout this country, chief constables took one of two views. In some areas they regarded it as a commercial vehicle, and if anyone drove one of these utility vehicles at a speed over 30 miles an hour they made an appearance before the bench. In another county or area the chief constable perhaps did not bother, and therefore such drivers were immune. This position continued for fifteen years and I must admit it cost many people a lot of money in fines. There was always some doubt whether or not fines should be imposed, but technically I imagine that the police were correct. In 1950 the Minister of Transport was persuaded to make an attempt to rectify this anomalous position, and in your Lordships' House on October 24, 1950, I introduced, and asked your Lordships to pass, the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1950. To make clear what this regulation did, I will read from the explanatory note, because that is intelligible while the regulation, like every other regulation, is not. It says:
  "The present Regulations exempt from the speed limit so prescribed certain goods vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres and not exceeding three tons in weight unladen when not drawing trailers. The speed limit of thirty miles an hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licences,"—
  these are the words I ask your Lordships to note—
  "or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in Section 1 (7) of the Read and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
  Those exemptions in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are numerous. I will not read them to your Lordships but they cover ambulances, fire engines, local authority vehicles and so on. These dual purpose vehicles were brought under the carrier's licence. If an owner of one of these utility vehicles used the vehicle for passengers and for the carriage of his own goods only, he did not need a C licence. If he carried goods in the course of a business or profession, or for hire or reward, he fell into the category of a

  187
  C licence holder just as if he had been using a van or commercial vehicle—that is, a proper goods-carrying vehicle, van or lorry—and he was restricted to a speed of 30 miles an hour.
  Now he could use this utility vehicle for passengers only and he was immune; the vehicle was a motor car in the full and accepted sense of the term. If he carried some person other than himself it was still a motor car. But as soon as he put in any goods he brought himself within the requirement to hold a C licence, and was subject to the 30 mile an hour speed limit. I just want to quote what I said upon the occasion to which I have just referred. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 168, Col. 1253]:
  "We have attempted to overcome this difficulty by using, if I may put it in this language, the carriers' licence formula. As your Lordships know, a goods vehicle, carrying goods for hire or reward, or for or in connection with a trade or business, must have an A, B or C licence. These are known as carriers' licences. We have now come to the conclusion that we will make another division, and any goods-carrying vehicle that does not require a carriers' licence will in future be exempt from the speed limit which applies to commercial vehicles. Therefore, a utility vehicle which is constructed to carry goods and passengers, so long as the goods carried in that vehicle are not carried for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or busineses, will in future, if your Lordships agree to this Motion, be exempt from the thirty mile an hour speed limit."
  May I pause there. We thought that everything was going to be plain sailing. So it was until there was a case which is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum regarding Clause 6. This was the case of Blenkin v. Bell, in 1952. That was in connection with a utility vehicle. It went before a Divisional Court presided over by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice held that this regulation and the law as it stood at the time did precisely what it was intended it should do but with the plus effect of saying that while a utility vehicle carried goods for hire or reward, or goods of any description, it came within the carrier's licence category. When it had not those goods in it, it was not subject to the conditions of a carrier's licence. That went—because of that particular judgment—for every commercial vehicle up to three tons unladen weight.
  Later there was the case of Woolley v. Moore, which concerned an ordinary goods-carrying van. And there was the
  188
  same dictum that any C licence vehicle was subject to the provisions of the C licence—that is, the restriction to the 30 miles an hour speed limit and the keeping of records—only when it was engaged in the actual function for which a C licence was so required. That had many results. Any commercial vehicle up to three tons unladen weight was able to go about the country at any speed the driver liked outside the 30 mile an hour speed limit, the same as a motor car. That was never intended; it is just abject nonsense—I am not saying that the judgment was nonsense, but the effect of it was. I am not concerned with the judgment. There have been expressions of opinion questioning it, but I expect there are always expressions of opinion questioning any judgment in any court of law. I am concerned only with the effect.
  This clause seeks to bring the position back to where we thought it was when the regulation was issued. In my submission, it means that if you have a utility vehicle to-day and you use it only for the carriage of passengers, you are in the same position as you were before—that is to say, you will not be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit. If you use that utility vehicle for the carrying of your own personal luggage you will, as before, not be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit. What this clause now does is to say that if you do license it in order to carry some goods in the course of your business, profession, occupation or trade, not only must you have a C licence but the condition of that C licence regarding the keeping of records applies, whether the vehicle is carrying goods or whether it is not. It means that if you want to carry goods in your utility vehicle you must have a C licence, and when you are not carrying goods and are using that vehicle as a passenger carrying vehicle wholly and solely, because it has a C licence you are still subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit; and unless you, the owner, are driving it, it is also subject to record-keeping in precisely the same way as is a commercial vehicle. At this point I breathe a sigh of relief, because I see that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is nodding his head. So I take it that I have not made much of a mistake up to now.
  What the Amendment now seeks to do is to improve the position as it was at

  189
  the status quo. It seeks to say that although you may need a C licence for a utility vehicle when it is carrying goods, it is not to be subject to the 30 miles an hour speed limit when it is not carrying goods. But the Amendment restricts this freedom to a utility vehicle. The definition of such a vehicle which I hope your Lordships will accept is the meaning assigned to it in subsection (1) of Clause 24 of the Bill. It now becomes apparent that there are still further anomalies. I want, if your Lordships will allow me, to quote just another two or three words from what I said in 1950 when I proposed the approval of the regulation which I have mentioned. After the remarks I have already quoted I went on to say this:
  "I do not pretend that this will not raise some anomalies—it is bound to; but it was a question of a choice of evils. I may be asked about a doctor carrying a case of instruments in a utility vehicle which is not constructed solely for the carrying of passengers, or a veterinary surgeon, or, for that matter, a sweep. Will such a case be exempt? As I am advised, the answer is No, it will not, because that is carrying goods in connection with a trade or business in a goods vehicle. I must add this proviso—and I am now speaking subject to correction. The courts, I understand, have never yet been called upon to decide whether the professional instruments of a doctor or a veterinary surgeon are goods carried for or in connection with a trade or business. In case any noble Lord is prepared to make the experiment, I should advise him not to do so."
  I want to address obliquely my next few remarks to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who spoke to your Lordships the other day lucidly, and for me plainly, on the question of the Negative Resolution procedure. The regulation I have just read out requires an Affirmative Resolution. The Ministry of Transport did not wait for the courts to decide whether a doctor's case of instruments was goods. On September 5, 1951 (and this is an interesting date for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor), a regulation was made. It was laid before Parliament on September 8 and came into operation on September 19. At that time, Parliament was in Recess and everybody's mind was on the General Elections. This regulation went through on the Negative Resolution procedure, and escaped even the vigilance of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. So these things can slip through; and this one did.
  This is the paradoxical position we have now arrived at as a result of this regulation, which I shall read to your Lordships. It is Goods Vehicles. The Road and Rail Traffic Act (Exemption) Regulation, 1951. It tries to get the doctor, dentist and other professional people out of the dilemma and this is how it does it. These regulations re-enact with amendments the Road and Rail Traffic Act (Exemption) Regulations, 1930, as amended, by granting exemption in certain cases from the regulation under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, that goods vehicles shall not be used for the carriage of goods for hire or reward or in connection with trade or business except under a carrier's licence. The principal changes are that exemption is now granted to the following additional cases—this is made under the last paragraph of Section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933:
  (n) to the use of a motor vehicle by a medical practitioner, state registered nurse, state certified midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon for the carriage of medicines or of any instruments or apparatus necessary for his or her use in carrying on his or her profession as a medical practitioner, nurse, midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon as the case may be, provided"—
  and I call special attention to this point—
  "that no other goods are carried in the vehicle."
  So, for the first time, it is laid down in Statute that the doctor's little black bag is goods. I expect the draftsmen thought that they had done what had to be done, and that the doctor, dentist and all the others, were now able to carry their instruments in the course of their professional duties, and that they would not have either to keep records or conform to the 30 miles an hour limit.
  I must now take your Lordships back to the previous regulation and read the last two or three lines again. This regulation exempted utility vehicles from the operation of the 30 miles an hour limit. It stated:
  "The speed limit of 30 miles per hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licences,—
  and these are the operative words—
  "or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in Section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."

  191
  They become exempt vehicles under the first regulation I have read and do not have to keep records; but under the second regulation they have to conform to the 30 miles an hour limit. It means that a doctor who has a utility vehicle and who puts his little black bag in the back when going to an emergency case can travel at only 30 miles an hour. What a peculiar state we have got into! But the anomaly does not stop there. If the doctor owns a motor car instead of a utility vehicle, he can carry his instruments in it and be immune from the speed limit. No one could have foreseen this at the time the regulation was passed, as it went through during Recess and did not have the benefit of Parliamentary scrutiny and Parliamentary debate. I am going to give another example to show what a farcical position we have arrived at. If a commercial traveller puts his samples in the back of his ordinary motor car, he is within the law; but if, for private reasons, he owns a utility vehicle and puts his samples in the back of it, he must have a C licence and travel at not more than 30 miles an hour. As your Lordships will see, I have included the commercial traveller in my Amendment.
  This is a simple question. It all stems from the 1930 Act. It took us fifteen years to get the first regulations, and since 1930 we have been trying to legislate for one of the most virile industries in this country—the motor industry, which has done a job of work for the country by its ingenuity and enterprise second to none—with an archaic Act which we passed in the days when traction engines and solid-wheeled vehicles were very much in evidence. I have sought to get over this difficulty by formulating a definition of the utility vehicle, as your Lordships will see from Amendment No. 99. I have based that definition on the Customs and Excise definition for the purpose of purchase tax. This is not a case of tax dodging or anything like that, because a utility vehicle pays precisely the same excise tax and precisely the same purchase tax as a motor car. I am trying only to bring up to date a regulation which, if this carefully-thought-out Amendment is not carried, will be a grave blow to the motor industry. Production of utility vehicles, from the Husky to the Rolls and Bentley (I have put the limit at two tons in my Amendment, to take care of the whole
  192
  range of these vehicles), is now about 30,000 a year, to meet a popular demand. It is the British answer to the German and the American utility vehicles. Surely we cannot, at this stage of development of one of our greatest industries, shackle it to something that is archaic. We have the definition of a motor car, and we have in the regulations the definitions of a goods-carrying vehicle; now we must have a regulation defining what is a dual purpose or utility vehicle.
  I have been rather long in moving this Amendment, but this is a highly technical subject and I have done my best to explain it lucidly to your Lordships. In Amendment No. 34 I try to say that a dual purpose vehicle, though it may now have a C licence, shall not be subject to a 30 miles an hour limit when it is not carrying goods. In Amendment No. 36 I propose to rectify the position of doctors, midwives, dentists and such people, including commercial travellers; and I have put in paragraph (c) to give the Minister power to make further regulations if he so desires. I think one could continue this matter indefinitely. Would the engineer with a bag of tools come under this provision? He must come under it, because the regulation defines all these things as "goods." By Amendment No. 99 I try to give your Lordships a practical definition of what constitutes a dual purpose vehicle. I thank your Lordships for your patience, and I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE EARL OF ROTHES: Before attempting to address your Lordships on any of these Amendments, I must declare an interest, inasmuch as I am connected with the road passenger transport industry, although I do not think that on this particular Amendment that fact has any bearing. I should like to support a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, and from a particular point of view. The clarification of dual purpose vehicle is an important point from many aspects, but in particular, I think, from this one; that if it is not clearly understood what you may and may not use a dual purpose vehicle for, that will affect the popularity of, and the demand for, this vehicle; and that, in turn, will affect the volume of the

  193
  output of the manufacturers of this vehicle. If, however, this point were clarified, the demand would, I believe, substantially increase, and that would enable manufacturers substantially to reduce their costs. As all your Lordships are aware, the motor industry at this moment is playing a most important part in the export trade; and you are equally aware that we vitally need increased exports. If, therefore, by clarifying the purposes for which a dual purpose vehicle may be used it were possible to increase its popularity, I think that would help the motor trade to get the exports which we all want so badly.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has singled out the medical profession and ancillary helpers as rather startling instances of the difficulties which might arise under existing regulations or under the terms of this Bill. It is obvious from the Bill that we are dealing with life and death matters, and it is legitimate that the medical profession should take some notice. At the same time, I must say that it is difficult enough already for the ordinary surgeon or midwife to know the real position. I cannot see that the present Bill, or the exposition of the noble Lord, makes the position much clearer: in fact, one is left like a client who has a judgment against him in the Court of Appeal, feeling that the only resort left to him is to appeal to the Lords—and we have to adjudicate on this.
  Is the doctor travelling with what the noble Lord calls his "little black bag" to be regarded as travelling with his luggage, or carrying his own goods? Noble Lords must realise from the pharmaceutical costs to-day that a "little black bag" no longer meets the situation. The noble Lord mentioned in his argument the doctor's "little black bag": but what about the civil servant's brief-case? The contents are the tools of his trade. If he puts them in a utility vehicle, is he still further to delay the decision of a Ministry by travelling at 30 m.p.h.? Surely, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, on behalf of the Government, will do something to clarify the position in regard to the utility vehicle when being used, not for carrying goods and not only for carrying the driver's or owner's own goods, but for carrying the tools of his trade. I hope the noble Earl will realise that, from the point of
  194
  view of ensuring that the regulations and the Bill are understood by people whose minds are full of different things, it should be made clear what regulations apply to their activities. It would be a great pity if a Bill which is designed to preserve life and to delay death should delay the surgeon when going on a life-saving mission because he has got to obey some regulations which may result in there being no other alternative but death. I am sorry to terminate my remarks on the word "death," but that is inevitable; and difficulty and trouble is inevitable under this Bill unless it is clarified.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that this was a highly technical subject, and if I may humbly say so, I thought that his exposition of it was exceedingly able; in fact, he has given me not a little trouble, with the assistance that I have, to try to understand the nature of this problem. I can find no fault with the statement of the case which the noble Lord has made, but I must emphasise that there are two things which are quite different. First of all, there is what we are actually doing in this clause; and secondly, there is what the noble Lord proposes—and they are quite different things.
  Let me remind your Lordships of what we are doing in the clause. When the speed limit was abolished in 1930, cars were divided into two categories: those for carrying persons and their effects, and those for carrying goods. We are concerned here only with vehicles which carry goods or burdens of any description. By and large, for vehicles over three tons the limit is 20 m.p.h., and for those under three tons it is 30 m.p.h. That was how the law stood until the cases which the noble Lord has mentioned, Blenkin v. Bell and the other case. The effect of the Court's decision is this. When vehicles are running empty the conditions of the licence do not apply, which means—we have been advised so—that not only does the speed limit not apply, but also that none of the other conditions, such as maintenance of the vehicle, the keeping of records and the keeping of driving hours, applies.
  I think your Lordships will agree that in those circumstances we had no option but to bring in amended legislation to make it quite clear that, in regard to the ordinary carrier's licence, the conditions

  195
  should apply. And that is what we have done here. I do not think I need explain it. We have done it in a somewhat complicated manner, but I need not weary your Lordships with it. You will see paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 6, which apply whether or not goods are being carried. I want to emphasise that what we are doing here applies only to licence holders. It does not, so far as we are concerned, apply to anything else. That is the only alteration which we make in the law.
  The noble Lord has brought up another question, and that is the dual purpose car, generally known as a "utility." Under the definition of the 1933 Act, that was, and is, a goods vehicle, although, as we all know, a large number of them are used for private purposes. The noble Lord has explained that, but for the regulations of 1950, all these cars would be controlled by a 30 m.p.h. limit. That is no longer the case, because these regulations apply only to C licensed vehicles and to specific exempted vehicles. Other dual purpose vehicles are not subjected, of course, in any way tó the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. That, in effect, means that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit applies, apart from C licensed vehicles, to farm vehicles with an F licence and Crown vehicles generally, such as military vehicles, and to doctors' vehicles, and vehicles used by nurses, veterinary surgeons and people in trade and industry, although these do not require a C licence.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the number of dual-purpose vehicles which are not subject either to licensing or to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. The noble Lord does it in this way—by saying that an authorised vehicle, when it is adapted for the carriage of passengers and not in use for the purpose for which the licence is required, will be deemed not to be an authorised vehicle. There is a little difficulty there about the drafting, but I think the intention of the noble Lord is perfectly clear. If that is the case, under the regulations of 1950 it comes into the category which is not covered by the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.
  My first objection to the idea is that it means that the same vehicle, if it can be adapted, will sometimes be within the 30 m.p.h. speed limit and sometimes not. I
  196
  think that would be a matter for some confusion, which would be a pity. The noble Lord then goes on to describe the dual-purpose vehicle, and I will say a word or two about that description in a minute. In his Amendment No. 36, the noble Lord says that where a dual purpose vehicle as already described is used for certain purposes—doctors, the carrying of samples, and things of that sort—it will not be regarded as a goods vehicle and, therefore, will not require a C licence and will not be subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I think I should make the point straight away that in both these spheres the Minister has power to act by regulation. This matter is one of such complexity that I think it is better discussed round a table. Also, these regulations may require amendment from time to time. With the evolution of the motor' car, it is quite possible that other changes may take place which will make amendment necessary. What I am prepared to say straight away is that if anyone can produce a water-tight description of a dual-purpose vehicle, we shall be happy to consider putting it into the Statute or using it in other ways.
  I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, and the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said about the clarification which we should like in this matter. That clarification requires two factors. In the first place, the dual purpose vehicle must be defined in such a way that the ordinary light goods vehicle does not come within the definition and cannot be readily designed or adapted to come within it. In the second place, I think it is necessary that one should be able to tell fairly well at a glance whether a vehicle is or is not subject to the speed limit; otherwise, it seems to me, the task of the police will be very difficult. The definition in Amendment No. 99, I say at once, is a most ingenious definition. I do not think the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the Customs and Excise definition.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is based on it.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should say that the Customs and Excise definition causes a great difficulty. It is much easier, of course, to examine the vehicle for Excise purposes than it is to recognise

  197
  it when it is on the road. If your Lordships would look at Amendment No. 99 you will see this in (b):
  "as to the rear of the driver's seat roofed accommodation"—
  I suppose that could be of canvas or tarpaulin—
  "fitted with side windows or is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows."
  I suppose that means something in the way of a piece of perspex. I do not know whether it is sufficient to have just a hole, but it is obviously fairly simple to come within the terms of that. Then if we go on to paragraph (d), it says:
  "as, in that part of it which is to the rear of the driver's seat, seating, which may be collapsible, for at least two passengers sitting side by side …"
  If you have two tip seats side by side behind the driver's seat, which could be put in perhaps for £2 or £3, that will immediately convert almost any lorry into a dual purpose vehicle. It is for that reason that I must advise your Lordships that this definition will not hold water. Frankly, I should welcome it if it did, because it would greatly simplify the matter.
  There are, of course, as the noble Lord has said, a good many exemptions which have been made under the 1951 regulation. We are aware of the anomalies. The noble Lord was quite frank about it when he moved the regulations in 1950: he said that there were anomalies there. But if we are going to change the law we must go to a better position where the anomalies are less marked. That, I think, is fundamental. It is no good moving from one anomalous position to another. It will not clarify the position at all if we do that. I think we must bear in mind that, though there must be confusion, we are not aware of any great hardship arising from this, and we do not feel justified in seeking to remove a few anomalies if, at the same time, we abandon effective control over a large and increasing number of light goods vehicles which are extensively used in trade. I should like to say to the noble Lord that we have regulatory powers to deal with this matter. The Minister can alter the classes of vehicles—they can go into the C licence group—or he can alter their permitted speed. We think it would be a much more effective way of getting the result and a more adaptable way which
  198
  could be changed from time to time, if necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I do not think it would clarify the situation, which all your Lordships are most anxious to clarify, if possible.
  LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that there is one point about which I am rather disquieted. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend that it may be better to put this matter right by regulation, but many of us who are interested in this subject would like to have some assurance that the Minister will try to meet the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made, and will, in fact, make the regulation. Speaking for myself, unless my noble friend gives some assurance of that kind I shall be profoundly dissatisfied.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his most courteous reply. If we have a battle, then it will be a perfectly friendly one. I must say, and I say it with no discourtesy to him, that all he said from that Dispatch Box to me had a very familiar ring. I heard all those excuses given for our waiting fifteen years for the first regulation. From a lifetime's experience in the motor industry, I could shoot holes in any regulation on the construction and use of motor vehicles in this country. One talks about being able to evade. Commercial vehicles are licensed by unladen weight. There is not one commercial vehicle in a thousand on the roads of this country that is the same weight today as it was when it originally got its excise licence. I am sorry for the noble Earl in a matter such as this, because it is highly technical. The noble Earl says he shot holes in my definition, although he admitted it was an ingenious one. It has satisfied the Customs and Excise; and if you can satisfy the Customs and Excise on a definition where revenue from tax is concerned, believe me, you have a miracle on your hands. They are perfectly satisfied.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said they were.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When the manufacturer of any vehicle in this country produces a vehicle that requires a tax exemption certificate—for

  199
  instance, if he wants to evade the purchase tax on one of these utility vehicles—he has to obtain the Customs and Excise inspector's certificate of exemption before he is allowed to put the vehicle on the road. What the noble Earl's advisers have put into his mouth they tried to put into mine every day when I was battling to get this first exemption of the utility vehicle from the 30 miles an hour limit. Frankly, I am not prepared to go on throttling a great industry of this country by the whim of producing regulations. It is something from which we have all suffered. The noble Earl has not said one thing about the burden of my complaint. It is as a result of regulation cancelling regulation that the medical practitioner, the midwife and the dentist cannot now travel at over 30 miles per hour. I read the regulations to your Lordships. You ask me to give up this Amendment when we now have a Road Traffic Bill on our hands. I doubt if many of your Lordships will be alive when we get the next Bill; this is the golden opportunity.
  Of course, there will be anomalies—I admitted it before. I do not care what regulation the noble Earl brings forward, if I have a mind to I can shoot more holes into it than he has shot in my Amendment, because I have the technical knowledge. Of course you will never get a cast-iron regulation to conform with a design of the motor industry. Why should you? Regulations! It was a regulation of the horse-power tax days that nearly put this motor industry out of business.
  I am sorry, but I feel so strongly about this matter that, whatever anomalies are involved in my Amendment—and I fail to see one-hundredth that the noble Earl can—I am not prepared to allow this industry, the 80,000 people who have these vehicles and the 30,000 who are going to buy them every year, to suffer under this disadvantage. As this is the opportunity of putting matters right, I shall ask your Lordships to express your opinion in the Division Lobby.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the 1951 regulation subjected the medical profession to that limit. What I did think it did was to release them from the obligation of having a C licence.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; it is not so as regards the 30 miles an hour limit.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is the position.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it is not. May I read the regulation to the noble Earl?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have read it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I appeal to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to allow me to read the regulation? It is the regulation of 1950 exempting the utility vehicle from the 30 miles an hour limit. This is what it says:
  "The speed limit of 30 miles per hour which has hitherto applied to all such vehicles will in future apply to such vehicles only if they are authorised to be used under carrier's licence"—
  that is, the A, B, or C licence—
  "or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions contained in section 1 (7) of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 …"—
  this is the exemption—
  "or if they would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemptions …"
  The "specific exemption," as I read it to you, is
  "the use of a motor vehicle by a medical practitioner, state registered nurse,"
  et cetera when they are carrying medicines,
  "instruments or apparatus necessary for his or her use … provided that no other goods"—
  so "instruments" are goods—
  "are carried in the vehicle."
  They are exempt; they become an exempted vehicle. If they were not an exempted vehicle, they would be an authorised vehicle. When we have here:
  "would require to be so authorised but for the specific exemption,"
  it means that they would have to be authorised because they are carrying goods, and the limit then is thirty miles per hour.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: May I say a word of explanation? I understood from the noble Earl that he was prepared to clarify the situation. I was hoping that points like these would not come to a Division—in which, indeed, I should not take part—because I understood that we

  201
  might have a shorter and clearer exposition at a later stage of the Bill. I also want to take this opportunity of saying, that whatever may be the interpretation of regulations or licences and what-not (which I find it extremely difficult to follow) where it has been made clear that the breach was necessary in the service of others my profession has always been treated extremely generously and sympathetically, in magistrates' courts and right up to the highest court, whenever any objection has been taken to speed on the road or any other breach of regulations.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, for what he says about this matter and I appreciate the strength and feeling behind what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. I think it is fair to recognise that if there had been a simple classification in 1950 the noble
  Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Lord opposite would have put it into the regulations, and if there were a simple classification now we should do it to-day. What I will undertake to do is to represent as strongly as I can to the Minister that some of the anomalies to which the noble Lord has referred should be ironed out. I do not say that that will get rid of them all, but I will represent as strongly as I can that that course should be adopted. I do not pretend that that will not leave other anomalies, because I think that is inevitable. I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will accept that offer, because I am afraid that I cannot do more.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 33.

  CONTENTS

  Camden, M.

  Amulree, L.

  Jessel, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Kenswood, L.

  Burden, L. [Teller.]

  Kershaw, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Chorley, L.

  Killearn, L.

  Gosford, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Howe, E.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Mathers, L.

  Jowitt, E.

  Gifford, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Gisborough, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Glyn, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Henderson, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Winster, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  Leathers, V.

  Digby, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Soulbury, V.

  Dovercourt, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Goddard, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Woolton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Leconfield, L.

  Home, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Munster, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

SIERRA LEONE
4.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to make a statement similar to that which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the situation in Sierra Leone.
For some time two unions in Sierra Leone have been negotiating, through a joint industrial council, for wage increases. A deadlock was reached on the 4th February. The employees adhered to a demand for an increase of 10d. a day, while the employers offered an increase of 6d. with a promise to re-open negotiations as soon as new cost of living figures were available. The employers asked for arbitration if their offer was not accepted. The employees' representatives refused both the offer and to go to arbitration. They invited all workers to a mass meeting at which it was decided to call a general strike on February 9. The Railway Workers' Union publicly dissociated itself from this call, and on February 9 there was only a partial response. During the next two days the strikers caused a series of disturbances at the railway workshops and the port installations and a number of arrests were made.
On Friday, the 11th, strike leaders and the leader of an Opposition political Party addressed a meeting of strikers. The strikers were promised the Opposition Party's support, and the failure to get their demands was blamed on the political Party in power. The meeting was orderly but was followed by serious rioting. The railway workshops, the dock areas and the Eastern police station were attacked by the strikers. Troops stood by to help the police who were becoming exhausted after two days' continual pressure, and in the afternoon began operations in support of them. One company relieved the Eastern police station, which was in danger of being burned down with men inside it. The police fired a number of rounds of rifle fire in defending the area of the police station. There were three casualties among the strikers and one European police officer was fatally injured by the crowd.
Rioting spread, and continued into the next day, Saturday, February 12.
204
Attempts were made to dislocate essential service installations, road communications, water and electricity supplies, and the telephone system, at key points. The Governor states that these appeared to be carefully planned and executed. Three companies of troops were fully engaged during this period. They and the police had to open fire a number of times in their attempts to control the widespread rioting, and to prevent the looting, arson and general destruction of property which was going on.
On Saturday afternoon the strike leaders approached the Government. The Governor informed them that he would appoint a Commission of Inquiry to look into all circumstances of the dispute and the disturbances: and that he would immediately set up a Conciliatory Committee to bring workers' and employers' sides together again. On this the strike was called off. Rioting immediately died down. Patrols and a curfew were maintained over the weekend and on Monday there was an almost complete return to work. Troops were withdrawn on the same day and the curfew is being lifted to-day. Seventeen persons killed and eighty-four injured have been reported to date, but there may still be some casualties not yet reported. There were no serious casualties among the troops, but besides the police officer who was killed there were four others severely wounded and many suffered minor injuries.
The Conciliatory Committee has met several times but my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, has not yet heard that they have reached a conclusion. My right honourable friend has expressed the regret and the grave concern of Her Majesty's Government at these happenings. My right honourable friend feels that he must await the report of the Commission of Inquiry before coming to any conclusions upon them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we all greatly regret these happenings in a Colony which was making such good and steady progress, and we sympathise very much with the relatives of the European police officer who lost his life and with the relatives of all those who have been injured or have lost their lives in this disturbance. It is a sad happening and a serious one, when one considers how many people have been killed and injured. There are one or two questions

205
I feel I must ask the noble Earl. First, I notice from his statement that when the Governor informed the strike leaders that the Conciliatory Committee would be called together the strike was immediately called off and rioting died down. Was any attempt made by the Governor to contact the strike leaders with such an offer before the rioting took place? Secondly, the noble Earl was unable to give us the full figures of casualties. Has he any estimate of the figures of the likely casualties, in addition to those whose death or injury is known? Finally, with regard to the Commission of Inquiry, could the noble Earl inform us how that Commission will be constituted and who, in fact, constitute the Conciliatory Committee?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask one question before the noble Earl replies? Can he say whether the Report of the Commission of Inquiry will be published—as I think it should be—and, if so, whether a copy of the Report could be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I would say that, as I mentioned, on Saturday, February 12, the strike leaders approached the Government, and when the Governor informed them that he would appoint a Commission of Inquiry and that a Conciliatory Committee would be set up the strike was called off. So far as my information goes, I do not think the Governor had had previous contact with the strike leaders, but he did draw their attention to the provision of Section 5 of the Trade Disputes Ordinance which had the effect of making it an offence for persons engaged in the maintenance of certain essential services wilfully and maliciously to break their contract of service. I do not think the Governor had any other contact with the strike leaders. I have no further information about casualties at the present time, but I will let the noble Lord have that information as soon as possible. With regard to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry, my right honourable friend proposes that this should consist of a chairman from the United Kingdom, an expert on industrial relations, also appointed from the United Kingdom, and two judicial members from West Africa. In reply to the question of the noble Earl,
206
Lord Listowel, on the publication of the Report, I would say that I have little doubt that the decisions reached by the Commission of Inquiry will be published, and I feel certain that my right honourable friend will be quite prepared to lay a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
Conditions relating to driving licences
".—(1) Subsection (1) of section five of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which makes provisions as to the physical fitness of applicants for licences) shall have effect as though the words 'including inability to drive a motor vehicle with full efficiency by night or day without the use of spectacles or other visual aids' shall be inserted after the word 'vehicle'.
(2) Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section five of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall have effect as though the following words were added at the end thereof 'and if the test proves his fitness to drive vehicles efficiently only when using spectacles or other visual aids, the licence shall be subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to use such spectacles or visual aids when driving.'"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. The object of this clause is to ensure that persons who are able to drive efficiently either by night or by day only with the aid of spectacles or other visual aids shall have proper regard for the need to wear these whenever they are driving. As your Lordships are well aware, at the present time licensing authorities take no particular steps to impose special conditions upon drivers who suffer from poor vision and who may be a serious menace on the roads if their vision is not adequately corrected by artifical means. All that is now asked is that a person should be able to read the number plate of a car some twenty-five yards away. This is a very crude estimate of a person's visual ability, in any event, and, of course, many persons are able to read a number plate at that distance only when wearing their glasses. Once they have passed the test, they can, if they so wish, go on the roads and drive without their glasses, and in the event of this carelessness leading to some serious accident,

207
the courts, at the moment, have no means of going into the matter in any way at all.
It has been estimated that nearly 5 per cent. of the motorists of this country have vision below the standard laid down in the Road Traffic Act: they cannot read a number plate at 25 yards in broad daylight without the aid of glasses. Incidentally, as your Lordships are well aware, that standard is less than half that of normal vision, since a person with good sight would be able to read a car number plate at, say, 60 yards. What is suggested in this Amendment is that the Minister should take steps to arrange that driving licences in this country should be endorsed with some such words as: "valid only when spectacles are worn" in the case of motorists who cannot, without visual aids, read a car number plate at 25 yards. As your Lordships know, this additional endorsement of licences is already carried out in New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, certain States of Australia and the majority of States in the United States of America, including New York State. Reports I have received indicate that the arrangement works very satisfactorily. I have, as a matter of fact, in my possession a photograph of a New York State licence so endorsed, and in order to illustrate what was in my mind in submitting this matter to your Lordships I handed that reproduction to my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I suggest that the Minister of Transport might well look into the desirability of introducing some similar order here, since such an arrangement would effectively bring home forcibly to motorists that really good vision is essential for safe driving. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sempill.)
LORD WINSTER: There seems to me to be considerable force in what the noble Lord has said about his Amendment. But if the Government should be thinking of accepting it there is one point that I should like to make. The last few words of the second paragraph of the Amendment read:
"the licence shall be subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to use such spectacles for visual aids when driving."
I do not care very much for the word "undertakes." That means that a man
208
should give an undertaking. I think that it would be simpler, more forcible and more direct if these words were made to read
"the licence shall be subject to the condition that the applicant uses such spectacles or visual aids when driving."
My object is simply to make the provision more direct. The word "undertakes" might give rise to some difficulty in cases coming before a bench.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I think we all have considerable sympathy with the point which Lord Sempill has put. Naturally, we all look with a certain amount of distaste upon a man who drives a motor car knowing full well that he ought to drive only when wearing spectacles and yet does not do so. But the problem is not quite so simple as it at first looks, because the real culprit is usually not the man who deliberately takes his test with glasses and then does not wear them, but the person, whose eyesight has been steadily deteriorating, who, not realising that he or she ought to wear spectacles, offends unconsciously. I say "he or she," advisedly, because I am afraid that such meagre statistics bearing upon this matter as we have, seem to indicate that the culprit is nearly always a middle-aged lady who is not prepared to admit that the time has come for her to wear spectacles. Those people like myself who have worn spectacles all their lives (I have worn them since I was two years of age—which I understand is about the age nowadays when young people begin to take an interest in horror comics) have to take the test wearing spectacles because they cannot pass it without them. These people would not cause any problem under the proposed Amendment. We must, however, also consider the many people who obtained their licences before the test was introduced or whose eyesight was adequate when they took the test but has since deteriorated. What would be their position?
We must also examine whether there is evidence to justify the proposed Amendment. I am bound to say that from the meagre figures at my disposal the problem at which this Amendment is directed does not seem to be the cause of very

209
much trouble on the roads. There are very few cases where it appears that the accident was directly attributable to the failure of the driver to wear spectacles. There is the further difficulty that the drafting of the noble Lord's Amendment does not achieve what he thinks it does, or what he wishes it to do—for this reason. The noble Lord's intention, if I have understood him correctly, as provided in the first subsection of the new clause, is to require that the declaration made by applicants for a licence shall include a declaration as to the applicant's ability or inability to drive efficiently at all times without the use of spectacles. I doubt whether a declaration of that kind would be of great value. But if it were, I can tell the noble Lord that we are able to provide for this in the application form by a simple amendment of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licence) Regulations; no amendment of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 is necessary. The result of requiring such a declaration would be that, if it were made, the licensing authority would, under Section 5 (2), be obliged to refuse a driving licence except after a test.
The intention of the second half of the noble Lord's Amendment is to amend Section 5 (2) (b) so that if the driving test proved that a candidate was fit to drive efficiently only when using spectacles or other visual aids, the grant of a licence would be subject to the condition that the applicant undertakes to use such spectacles or visual aids when driving. That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I doubt whether an undertaking would be of very much use. It would be a pious declaration that the driver intended to wear spectacles. But what kind of spectacles would that be—would they be proper spectacles, sun glasses, reading glasses or long-distance glasses? What we should need to give effect to what Lord Sempill wishes, I presume, would be the American system of the endorsed licence. I am not certain that we really want that, however. I am not certain that the noble Lord has fully applied his mind to that matter, because it does not marry up at all with the Amendment. I ask your Lordships to consider this point very carefully, and perhaps the noble Lord also would look at it again and consider it, because such a proposal is a
210
very radical departure from our present practice.
I will leave your Lordships with the thought that Lord Sempill's Amendment clearly does not cover the endorsing of licences at all; that the effect of his Amendment, as at present drafted, would not meet what I understand to be his wishes. If I have interpreted his wishes correctly, I believe that we already have power to give effect to them under the existing law; although we have not yet taken the powers under the enabling Statute. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment now, and perhaps he will consider it again very carefully, particularly with regard to the question of endorsing driving licences. Perhaps he will consider whether that rather drastic step is worth while, when so very few people, probably, would be involved and so few accidents are directly attributable to the cause at which his Amendment is directed. Perhaps we can discuss it again, bat on the present argument, I am afraid the Amendment is not acceptable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord's reply has helped those of us who are in a quandary about this matter. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that if any tightening up is done it should be upon the driving licence application form. Would the noble Lord consider that, and perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Sempill cares to put down a revised Amendment, the noble Lord could give the House the benefit of his consideration of that aspect, because I think that there the solution lies.
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly look at it in the light of the noble Lord's remarks.
LORD SEMPILL: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Winster for his useful suggestion about the drafting of the clause and for the sympathetic attitude adopted by my noble friend Lord Man-croft. I shall not take up your Lordships' time any further. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his remarks, which are in line with my own thoughts in following the advice of my noble friend, Lord Mancroft. In the circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I take it that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will adopt the usual course and accept this Amendment without further discussion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause—
(". In subsection (1) of section 36 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, there shall be inserted after the words ""Goods" includes goods or burden of any description" the words "save the following:—

(a) samples carried in a dual purpose vehicle as defined in subsection (1) of section 24 of the Road Traffic Act, 1955, used by a commercial traveller for the purpose of soliciting orders but not for the purpose of advertisement or of the sale or delivery of goods;

(b) medicines, instruments or apparatus carried in a deal purpose vehicle by a medical practitioner, state registered nurse, state certified midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon and necessary for his or her use in carrying on his or her profession as a medical practitioner, nurse, midwife, dentist or veterinary surgeon, as the case may be;

(c) such other articles as the Minister may by regulation prescribe."")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Amendments as to provisional driving licences
7.—(1) Where application is made to a licensing authority for the grant under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 of a provisional licence with a view to the passing of a test under the said section five or under section six of the Act of 1934 and the authority are satisfied that such a licence has been granted to the applicant (whether by them or by another authority) within the last twelve months, then if it appears to them that the applicant does not intend to submit himself to the said test within a reasonable time, they may refuse to grant the licence.
(2) In the said subsection (3) (which provides for the grant, on payment of a fee of five shillings, of provisional licences to drive for a period of three months) for the words "a fee of five shillings" there shall be substituted the words "such fee not exceeding ten shillings as may be prescribed" and for the word "three" there shall be substituted the word "six."
4.52 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "satisfied" and to insert:
"that the applicant has held provisional licences in respect of the same classes or descriptions of vehicles for an aggregate period of not less than twelve months then if it
212
appears to them that the applicant does not intend to submit himself to the said test within a reasonable time they may refuse to grant a licence unless a period of three months has elapsed since the applicant ceased to be the holder of such a licence."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends, Lord Willingdon and Lord Stonehaven, I should like to make their apologies for being unable to be here to-day. They had thought, on the programme, that this Amendment would have come up yesterday. They support it wholeheartedly.
I think this is a fairly important Amendment, which has a good deal of backing behind it. The purpose of Clause 7 is to enable a licensing authority to refuse a provisional driving licence to any person who, having been granted a provisional licence within the last twelve months, does not seem to intend to take a driving test within a reasonable time. The clause also increases the period of the validity of the provisional licence from three to six months, and the cost from five shillings to a sum not exceeding ten shillings, as decided by the prescribed Minister. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the holders of provisional licences from continuing to drive for long periods without making any serious attempt to pass a driving test. The practice has been common in the case of motor-cyclists, for whom the holding of provisional licences does not mean the disability of having to be accompanied by an experienced driver. The Amendment would introduce a definite break in the continuity of the provisional licence, which is given for six months, and at the end of that time would provide the learner-driver with the incentive to take the test. It is anticipated that normally a licensing authority would not use the power given without first writing to the licence-holder to inquire why he has not taken a test. I should like to read out the clause as we should like it to be.
"Where application is made to a licensing authority for the grant under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 of a provisional licence with a view to the passing of a test under the said section five or under section six of the Act of 1934 and the authority are satisfied that the applicant has held provisional licences in respect of the same classes or descriptions of vehicles for an aggregate period of not less than twelve months then if it appears to them that the applicant does not

213
intend to submit himself to the said test within a reasonable time they may refuse to grant a licence unless a period of three months has elapsed since the applicant ceased to be the holder of such a licence."
I hope that I have made the point clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 23 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like to support my noble friend, Lord Wolverton, in his Amendment and say that I think it is one which the Government should seriously consider.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In this clause we are doing something very simple, but I do not stand by the words as drafted, if noble Lords think they are not effective. We have really two suggestions here—one from the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and the other from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the first part of the following Amendment. The difficulty of this Amendment is how the local authority is to know that the person has held a provisional licence for not less than twelve months. There is no limit stated here, so that it might have been held at any time in his life. The local authority would have extreme difficulty in knowing whether someone had taken out a provisional licence in a different area. I suggest that the words, "for an aggregate period of not less than twelve months," impose an almost impossible condition on a local authority. In that respect, I prefer the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which says that the last licence shall have been held in the previous twelve months.
In the clause as it stands, we put responsibility directly on the local authority. Both Amendments seek to impose a condition before action is taken. I am prepared to consider that, but we think the matter should be left to the local authorities, which are competent to say whether a man really intends to take a test. He has, of course, a right of appeal to the court, which can be made under Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I do not think any local authority would be keen to appear unreasonable in withholding a licence, in view of the fact that action might be taken in court. As the noble Lord has seen, we have increased the duration of the licence to six
214
months. That means that a licence is held for six months, but at the discretion of the local authority may be withdrawn subsequently if they consider that the holder does not intend to take a test. My own guess is that he will write a letter and give an explanation that he has been abroad, or has been sick, or something of that sort, and they will say: "Here is another licence." If noble Lords think that that is giving too much discretion to local authorities, then we shall be prepared to consider it further.
LORD WOLVERTON: We felt that it was a good thing to have a definite break, because it would encourage people, and particularly motor-cyclists, to come forward for a test. We realised the difficulty of having two different licences with two local authorities. The present practice is somewhat abused now, and as the Government were taking power to tighten it up, we felt that a definite break would encourage the drivers to submit themselves for a test. However, we shall have further discussion on the Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from and including "such" down to the end of the subsection, and to insert:
"the applicant has been granted such licences which were in force for a total period of not less than twelve months (the last licence granted to him having been in force at any time during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of commencement of the period for which a licence is desired) and has either (a) not been subjected to the said test during the last twelve months of such total period as aforesaid or (b) failed to pass the said test on at least three occasions, they may after considering any representations made by or on behalf of the applicant refuse to grant a licence."
The noble Earl said: I was glad to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in reply to the last Amendment, because it seems to me that he would agree with my view that this subsection of Clause 7 is unsatisfactory at the moment. I move this Amendment because the subsection as drafted seems to me to be somewhat vague and ambiguous, and for that reason will not carry out the intentions of the Government, with which I think both the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and I are in sympathy.

215
I was also glad to note that the noble Earl is anxious to meet the views of the licensing authorities, because in what I have to say I am speaking with the support of at least one important licensing authority. What I am afraid will happen if the clause as drafted goes into the Bill and becomes law is that, on the one hand, licensing authorities will interpret it in different ways, and therefore, that different practices will grow up in different parts of the country; and, on the other hand, unnecessary litigation will occur and magistrates will find difficulty in interpreting the subsection. Before going further, I would say that I do not expect the noble Earl to accept my Amendment as it stands. All I should like, and what I feel the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, would like, is that this subsection should be withdrawn for consideration between now and the Report stage, and that the Government should be willing to produce another form of words when we come to the next stage of the Bill.
I should like to specify what I feel would be improvements in the subsection. As it stands, the subsection does not specify the length of time the applicant must have held a provisional licence before a licensing authority may consider refusing his request for a renewal. In paragraph (a) of my Amendment I propose that the applicant must have had a provisional licence for at least twelve months—that specifies the period. The second part of my Amendment provides that the ground on which a licensing authority may refuse a provisional licence is based on fact and not intention. The words in the subsection are:
"that the applicant does not intend to submit himself to the said test within a reasonable time."
Is it not asking a lot of local licensing authorities to interpret the intentions of an applicant? After all, intentions, even good ones, are notoriously unreliable. A man may intend not to take a driving test one day and then change his mind the following day. I think this emphasis on the subjective state of mind of intention makes it difficult for the licensing authorities.
Therefore my Amendment suggests as the ground for a refusal to grant a provisional licence two matters of fact. The first is that the applicant has not, in fact,
216
taken a driving test in the previous twelve months; and the second is that he has taken a driving test three times and failed in all three tests. Both of those are quite easy things for the licensing authority to establish, and therefore they would be in a position to judge with absolute certainty whether or not there was ground for refusing an application for a provisional licence. It is on those grounds that I hope the noble Earl will be willing to reconsider this subsection between now and the next stage of the Bill, and I hope that in doing so he will be willing to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and myself, and any other noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this particular matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("that") to end of line 23, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD GIFFORD: I had intended to speak on the last Amendment, but I think that both of these Amendments are really aiming at the same thing. The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and other noble Lords, feel that there has been considerable abuse of these provisional licences, and that the criterion of intention is so vague that there ought to be something definite in the clause to guide local licensing authorities: it may be the gap suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, or, even better, that the man should automatically have a definite period of grace when he gets a provisional licence, but after that must show cause why he has not been for a test. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment of the noble Earl is also reasonable, in my view—that if the man has failed on three occasions he must show the reason why. I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is sympathetic towards the principle of these two Amendments. Whether or not we have got quite the right answer I do not know, but I hope he will look into this matter between now and the Report stage.
LORD WINSTER: I imagine that the thought lying behind these two Amendments is that their movers wish to see some teeth put into the existing system of the driving test, and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, may feel inclined to give full consideration to that idea. The system of the driving test

217
seems to me to be a quite admirable one: to improve the general standard of driving on the roads. However, I fear that it does not entirely achieve that object, because abuse of it by means of the provisional licence is notorious. I cannot see what is the use of instituting a driving test if people are able to go on driving month after month without having passed it. They drive about with a plate with the letter "L" on it. What we really want is to get them to put up a plate with "GB" on it—"Getting better."
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to accept what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says. I will take this back and look at it and see whether we can devise words which will be more suitable. I think we are all at one. What we want is administratively the simplest way of doing it—that is to say, whatever is most suitable for the local authority who have to deal with it. I know that the noble Earl speaks with considerable authority for one great local authority, and I have no doubt that they have given their mind to this matter. It seems that the opinion expressed is that the conditions in which the local authority can operate are too vague, and I will see whether we can put something in the clause to make the position clear.
I think the noble Earl passed rather lightly over paragraph (b) of his Amendment, because that goes rather further. I have to be a little careful before saying that we endorse that suggestion, because the noble Earl there proposes that after a man has failed a test three times he should not get a licence at all. The purpose of this clause is, in a sense, a reversal of that principle. The clause seeks to encourage people to take tests. Under the noble Earl's Amendment, I presume, if a man takes a test three times and does not pass, he would never get a licence. It is rather important to be clear about that, because it is a little different from the rest of the clause. I am afraid that it might act as a discouragement to people to take tests, because they would say, "If I take a test too soon, and I make a mess of two of them, I may never get a licence at all." Some people are very bad examinees in this matter, and do themselves less than justice when they take the examination. Finally, there is no special reason to
218
believe that where a man is taking his test for the fourth or fifth time it will not be entirely satisfactory.
In his Amendment the noble Earl uses the words, "may, after considering … refuse a licence." I am afraid that that may be taken by the local authority as meaning that after the third test they ought not to grant a licence; I am afraid that is the way in which the local authority might act. I do not know whether the noble Earl intends that, and that a man should be permanently disqualified from driving if he fails three times. He did not say so, and I do not know whether it was his intention. As he has not said so, perhaps I may take it that it was not. I think the second point is different, but at the moment I am not convinced that it is necessary.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I said in moving my Amendment that I did not expect the Government to accept it as it stands. Let me say now that I have the same objection to my Amendment as the noble Earl opposite. I think paragraph (a) is much sounder than (b). All I wanted, however, was that the Government should consider the wording of this subsection, with a view to stiffening it a bit, if possible, and making it more acceptable to local authorities. With the undertaking which the noble Earl has been good enough to give, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a licensing authority to grant such a licence may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction and on any such appeal the court may confirm the decision of the licensing authority or order the grant of such a licence."
The noble Lard said: I beg to move the, Amendment standing in my name. May I say, if exception is taken to the wording of the Amendment, that I should prefer Amendment No. 40 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton. With the broad intention of this clause, I think no one will disagree, but for many people the possession of one driving licence is a necessity for them to earn a living; and to be deprived of one would be a serious hardship. It might be that in all the circumstances the refusal of a driving licence was justified, but I suggest that

219
the persons concerned would feel an acute sense of grievance if, first of all, they were not informed of the grounds on which the refusal was based, and, secondly, had no opportunity of appealing against the refusal. This may seem a trivial matter, but I feel sure that on reflection your Lordships will agree that a person deprived of the means of earning a living is entitled to a measure of consideration to ensure that justice is not only done but appears to be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think I can give the noble Lord an assurance. As I think I said earlier, this point is already covered by Section 5 (5) of the 1930 Act, which says:
"If any person is aggrieved by the refusal of a licensing authority to grant a licence"—
he may appeal to the court. That fully covers the point, and I can say that it covers a provisional licence just as much as an ordinary licence. Therefore, I think the Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Earl, but may I suggest to him, with all respect, that this ought to go into the Bill? It is all very well to say that that is provided for, but, if he is intelligent, the unfortunate person who may have his licence refused may turn to this Bill; and he will see nothing in it about a right of appeal. What is he to do then? Surely to expect a person who may feel aggrieved to go back to an Act of Parliament passed twenty-three years ago is asking a little too much. I would appeal to the noble Earl either to put it into this Bill, or, if he cannot do that, to see that the licensing authority refusing the licence makes it perfectly clear to the person concerned that he or she has a right of appeal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I appreciate the spirit that is animating the noble Lord, Lord Burden. There is always a difficulty in repeating statutory provisions. If we insert a special one in this context it may throw doubt on the general point that "licence" includes "provisional licence." I shall be glad, however, to examine the noble Lord's second point on administrative action which would make it easier for the applicant. Perhaps he will allow me
220
to report it to my right honourable friend, to see what can be done. I hope that that will content him.
LORD BURDEN: With that undertaking, for which I thank the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new Clause:
Conditions relating to provisional licences
(". Subsection (3) of section five of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall have effect as though the following words were added after 'conditions,' that is to say 'and the said conditions shall provide that the holder of a provisional licence shall not drive any motor vehicle unless another person holding a valid driving licence is also present in such motor vehicle and unless the said vehicle is so adapted as to enable the said person to stop the said vehicle from the position in which he is seated.'")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. As I see it, it was the clear intention of Parliament, as expressed in the legislative measures of 1930 and 1934, that any holder of a provisional licence who had not passed the Government driving test should be accompanied by a qualified driver who would be in a position to control the actions of the learner. That intention can be, and is, as your Lordships know, avoided and abused, whilst complying possibly with the letter of the law. For instance, the qualified driver in the vehicle may be asleep or reading a book in the back of the car, or he may be seated in the "dicky" or, in a Pullman type vehicle, on the tip-up seat with his back to the driver and with the glass partition closed. In any case, in a large number of modern cars the hand-brake is completely inaccessible to a passenger in the front seat, thereby making the contribution of the instructor in a moment of crisis a verbal one—a state of affairs hardly calculated, as your Lordships will agree, to assist a beginner in an emergency.
I suggest that the essence of the existing law is that the holder of the valid licence should be in a position where he can control the vehicle should it be necessary in the interests of safety. As has already been mentioned in the course of this debate—and it is not irrelevant for me to

221
refer your Lordships to it again—these provisions came into effect some twenty years ago, at a time when there were only 2½ million vehicles on our roads, as compared with 5½ million to-day. In order adequately to exercise a degree of control sufficient for the valid licence holder to bring the vehicle to a halt in an emergency, it is essential not only that he should be seated in a position allowing maximum visibility, but that some simple form of dual-control of the foot-brake should be immediately accessible to him. The provision of a dual-control apparatus sounds a cumbrous and expensive operation, possibly involving structural alterations to the vehicle. That is not so. There is a simple device which could be purchased for a small sum, or even hired for a few shillings, and fitted in a matter of minutes to any type of private car: that is, the dual control foot-brake. Of course, to attain the ideal, to have a dual control of the clutch and accelerator, would naturally require a more involved arrangement, but that can be done. Should any of your Lordships be interested to see a device of this nature, arrangements could be made for a car or cars so fitted to be outside your Lordships' House for demonstration purposes.
It will be generally agreed that there are few roads in this country where the embryo motorist may practise, at least in the early stages, without his lack of experience constituting a real danger to other road users. The danger would be greatly minimised, however, if a dual control of the type I have suggested to your Lordships were to become obligatory for holders of provisional licences. I think it possible that this suggestion may not be greeted with enthusiasm by Her Majesty's Government. I would suggest, however, that the failure to date of the Ministry of Transport to publish figures relating to the number of provisional licence holders involved in notifiable accidents, when such figures obviously are easily available, is an argument for the adoption of this Amendment rather than its rejection.
This Amendment is aimed directly at the reduction of accidents in the immediate future, without cost or labour to the Ministry of Transport. Both experience and common sense show that, in the interests of the learner drivers themselves, as well as of other road users, there
222
should be a statutory obligation to provide dual control in vehicles put to this use. The cost is negligible and the results, I submit to your Lordships, might well be substantial. The adoption of this Amendment would constitute, in my view, a real and practical step towards the reduction of accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sempill.)
EARL HOWE: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has just told us in support of his Amendment, but I am sorry I cannot agree with him. I appreciate his efforts to assist the back-seat driver to take a hand in the proceedings, but that is sometimes done to-day, with all its attendant dangers, without learner drivers in the car. The noble Lord has been a member of the country's naval forces. I should have thought he knew of the dangers of having two people on the bridge. With all its possible defects, surely it is better to have one person solely in charge of a vehicle rather than the possibility of a sort of split line between the pair of them. I would much rather accept whatever possible dangers there may be in the learner driver, and just have the other man with him, than allow the instructor to "chip in" on occasion and interfere with the learner when he is actually controlling the vehicle. Somehow, I think that the proposal now made is unsound. I cannot see that the present arrangements work too badly. I have not heard any very great complaints that they do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will have a second thought about it, because I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. After some considerable experience, I must say that it is far from inexpensive to make a dual control car really safety-complete. More accidents, I would suggest, are likely to be caused, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, by having two people to do one man's job, than there would be without. I fear that it would have the reverse effect rather than that envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. I am afraid should find great difficulty in trying to support him.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has drawn attention

223
to a matter which I suppose could be considered to be of some importance but without which we have, on the whole, got on very well up to the present time. I do not think there are any statistics or any evidence showing that those with "L" licences have an unusual number of accidents. I have made inquiries on that point and there is no evidence at all to show it. Of course, if there were, obviously it would be the motor-cycle driver who would be more likely to be involved than the motor car driver. I must say I think it unlikely that any wise person would go with a learner driver and either sit in the back seat or fall asleep. It is certainly not the intention or the letter of the Act that that should be the case. Apart from other considerations or regard for the law, he is supposed to have at least a regard for his own skin.
I find myself in full agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. It has been said that it is better to have one bad general than two good ones. That probably applies in the same way to two people tugging at a brake. It might create a very difficult situation indeed. I feel that what is proposed is not necessary. Another point which would inevitably arise is that it would make it very much more difficult for people to learn to drive. It is most important that people should have full facilities. Many of your Lordships have probably taught people to drive. It is not too difficult to find isolated places where one can start and gradually move up without any real danger. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will not press this Amendment.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank my noble friends the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (both of whom are experienced motorists), who have had something to say on this matter, and also the noble Earl who has replied for Her Majesty's Government. In view of the fact that the feeling of the Committee seems to be against this Amendment, I will comply with the noble Earl's suggestion and withdraw it. I do so with great regret, because I believe that there is a real and growing need for a dual control attachment. But since that cannot be to-day, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.31 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Licences of drivers of heavy goods vehicles
". Section eight of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which provides for the temporary suspension of section thirty-one of the Road Traffic Act, 1934 (which provides that a person shall not drive a heavy goods vehicle on a road unless he is licensed for the purpose) shall have effect as though there were substituted for all words after 'until' in subsection (1) the words 'the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-six' and as though there were substituted for all subsequent references in that section to the appointed day a reference to the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-six."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The object of this Amendment is to fix a definite date for the reintroduction of special licences for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. These special licences were obligatory until the outbreak of the war when they were suspended under the Defence Regulations. Provision was, however, made in Section 8 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, for the reimposition of special licences on a day to be appointed by the Minister. All that is suggested in this Amendment is that the appointed day should be January 1 next year. May I point out that the bringing into force of that section would not involve any undue difficulty so far as concerns those who are now driving heavy goods vehicles, since it lays down that licensing authorities will automatically grant licences to those who have been driving such vehicles for six months in the aggregate during the preceding year, or who already hold a heavy goods vehicle driving licence. Moreover, the section makes provision for spreading the work of granting licences within a period of four years.
Anyone who has had experience of motoring on the trunk roads will agree with me when I say that the great majority of those driving heavy goods vehicles in this country are among the best and most considerate drivers on our roads; but it is desirable that we should ensure that new recruits to that responsible job should be properly trained and capable of doing the work. We have heard on several occasions that under this Bill we are dealing with lethal weapons. Would anyone to-day allow a young man of twenty-one, trained in the use of a rifle, immediately to use one of the new

225
cannon-fired rocket projectiles? Yet something similar to that is operating on the roads to-day. In present circumstances any young man who has attained his twenty-first birthday can pass the Government driving test with a pre-war car of any type, and be entrusted the following day with a heavy goods vehicle weighing up to as much as twenty tons. I would submit to the Committee that obviously that is not right. It may have been necessary during war-time, when manpower was short and when great risks had to be taken, but the time has long passed when the proper regulations should be reinstituted.
I do not think it would he any answer to say that owners of heavy goods vehicles would not entrust such expensive vehicles to inexperienced drivers. In many circumstances, they are obliged to use the only men available. It has been suggested that the unskilled driver is a prime cause of accidents. I would suggest that we ought seriously to consider that only properly skilled drivers should be allowed on our roads with what, more than once to-day, have been described as lethal weapons. I have been told by the British School of Motoring—this is a point in support of the case I am endeavouring to put to the Committee—that one commercial firm, engaged in road transport in an extensive way, have reduced their number of road accidents by over 50 per cent. as a result of themselves ensuring that their drivers are fully competent. I venture to think that the case I have tried to submit to the Committee is one which should receive the sympathetic consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to begin by underlining, and expressing my agreement with, what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said as to the present-day standard of driving by those who have to drive heavy goods vehicles. There is only one point I think one ought to have in mind in order to get the position into true perspective. It is quite correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said, that these vehicles may he very heavy—he spoke of vehicles of over twenty tons. Of course, this classification includes all articulated vehicles which are
226
used for heavier haulage; but, as a matter of definition, it also includes any lorry over three tons. Therefore, the whole field is not confined to heavy loads, in the sense that we have been discussing them in another context.
With regard to the general problem, I had it very much in mind myself, because, as I once told your Lordships' House, it had been my task during the last three years to endeavour to get rid of the Defence Regulations, and to decide which could be allowed to expire and which raised a problem that needed to be restated in permanent legislation. That was the reason why I decided, and Parliament eventually passed, the section dealing with this point to which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred—Section 8 of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. It then became a matter for the Minister to decide when it should be reintroduced. If there were any feeling in the Ministry that present arrangements were having an adverse effect on road safety, I should certainly not be advancing this argument to the Committee; but I have looked into the matter and I have had information put before me, and I should like to put that information before the House because I feel it disposes of that point.
Taking personal injury accidents as a percentage of heavy goods vehicles licences, and using that percentage for purposes of comparison, I understand that the figure in 1936 was 11 per cent., in 1949 7 per cent. and in 1953 7 per cent. I think noble Lords will be sufficiently interested to bear with me if I give the number of vehicles in those years: 1936, 62,700; 1949, 78,500; 1953, 101,500. It is remarkable that, despite that increase in the total number of vehicles, there has been no increase in the percentage, and that the present figure compares so well with those of pre-war days. There are few spheres in which the post-war figure compares well with the pre-war figure.
I will explain the difficulties in which we find ourselves on this point. First, there is the general increase in manpower required. I am advised that to restore this licence would at the start require upwards of 100 additional clerks. Look at the matter from another angle. We estimate that there are approximately three drivers for every heavy goods vehicle, so that, on the figures which I mentioned a

227
moment ago, there is a total of about 300,000, and, as the noble Lord himself said—and I agree—new recruits are constantly coming along. The restoration of the heavy goods vehicle licence would thus require either a considerable increase in the complement of technical staff to do the driving testing or would reduce the time that the existing certifying officers and vehicle examiners—those who formerly did the testing for these licences—can spend on the non-goods vehicles, on the more important work of examining and testing the condition of the passenger service vehicles, and on the goods vehicles themselves. That is a matter which we must consider at the present time. I am sorry that a question of staff should be important, but we do so regard it.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that, while the figures show that there is not an acute safety problem here, I shall convey to my right honourable friend, the Minister, the importance which the noble Lord has attached to this matter and the arguments which he has put forward. Although at the moment we do not think it is a suitable time to make these increases of staff, and it would indeed be difficult to find the certifying and examining staff without taking them off very important work, I shall explain to the Minister that in the view of the noble Lord and, I am sure, of his friends, this is an important matter, and I will ask the Minister to bear that in mind. Perhaps the noble Lord would be prepared not to press this Amendment tonight, but might put down a Question or ask for Papers in a few months' time. In the meantime, I assure him that I shall press the importance of the point on my right honourable friend.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Now I must step very warily, because I was never good at figures and I am a little puzzled at those he has given. Unless my calculations are absolutely wrong, the number of incidents remains about the same.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right; it is a question of the proportion. I hope I did not make any false point. The proportion is reduced as compared with the pre-war figure. I agree the numbers have gone up, as I said.
LORD BURDEN: That is how averages and percentages are apt to lead one astray, for it is little or no consolation to a man or woman who may be killed that he or she is one of a falling percentage; nor is it much help to a person who has been injured that the Ministry takes pleasure in the fact that percentages in these cold figures have fallen. I appreciate the argument in regard to staff, and on that point there may be some further representation made to the Minister. But in view of the kindly and considerate nature of the answer of the noble and learned Viscount, I have pleasure in asking leave of your Lordships to withdraw this Amendment. At the same time, I would assure the noble and learned Viscount that I have also noted his other, very amiable, suggestion about a Question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.49 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43, s. 4
". Notwithstanding anything contained in section four of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a driving licence issued by a local authority in Northern Ireland shall not be effective in Great Britain except in so far as the Minister may by order provide."
The noble Lord said: I hope that in moving this Amendment I shall not be accused of any political animosity in view of the well-known majority political view in Northern Ireland. I am putting the Amendment forward because I believe the present position is anomalous. The object of the Amendment is to do away with what I consider is the present absurd situation under which persons who are unable to pass a driving test in this country can, if they can raise the fare, go over to Northern Ireland, where I am advised no driving tests are necessary, and can obtain a Northern Ireland driving licence which is equally valid in Great Britain. I have no means of testing the fact, but I gather that this method of evading our own licensing arrangements is becoming increasingly known, with the result that more and more people are giving the Northern Ireland Government the advantage of the receipt of the driving licence fee and then coming over here and using the vehicles on our roads. I know that in these matters between Governments, and particularly with a Gov-

229
ernment so proud, I suppose, of its position (I do not like to drop a brick and say, "anomalous position"), they are very jealous of their prerogatives. I suggest, however, that it is time that their licensing laws were brought into line with our own, so that this anomaly may be ended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I very much regret that I do not feel able to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Burden. To the best of my knowledge, the inhabitants of the Republic of Southern Ireland are not treated in this country as foreigners. In fact, I believe that many thousands of them are working in Birmingham at the present moment without any let, hindrance or restraint of any sort. I should not think it would be advisable to impose any restriction of this sort—and it is a restriction of rather small nature—upon Northern Ireland. I cannot imagine that the practice to which my noble friend has referred is very widespread, or that there are such a number of people driving about with Northern Ireland driving licences as to make any regulation on the subject necessary. I think it will be far better to leave it to the good sense of the Government of Northern Ireland, to perceive as time goes on what an excellent idea it is to have these driving tests and to impose them in their own territory.
Incidentally, the Amendment brought to my mind something which proves how hospitable the Government of Northern Ireland are in regard to such matters as this. I once visited Northern Ireland with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and it was at a period when his driving licence was suspended. He was unable to drive in this country. But at one point in our journey we were met by the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland with a very nice Vauxhall car. With all the pleasure in the world, he invited Lord Howe to drive. Lord Howe at once climbed into the driving seat and drove us for the remainder of our journey on that occasion. Remembering that instance of Northern Irish hospitality, I do not feel that I could give any support to this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am sure that that hospitality has now been amply repaid.
LORD MANCROFT: Lord Burden is quite right, and I think he has put his finger on rather a curious anomaly. Whether when he raised the matter he knew what Lord Winster has just told us about the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I do not know. That is a matter for them to settle between themselves afterwards. Lord Burden is only right in a sense when he says that it is possible for a citizen of this country to pay a flying visit to Northern Ireland, obtain a driving licence without a test and then to come back and drive in this country. The operative term is "flying visit," because before a licence is granted the Northern Ireland authorities demand that you should satisfy them that you are in fact not paying a flying visit but intend to or are residing in the country. I do not believe the practice of obtaining a licence in this way is very widespread, but the queer anomaly has received a certain amount of publicity as the result of the conduct of a certain film star who, having failed to pass her driving test in this country, rather petulantly announced that she was going to fly to Northern Ireland to get her licence there. I think she was not aware of the fact that she would have to satisfy the Ulster authorities that she intended to reside in Northern Ireland. To do so would no doubt have upset her film career quite considerably.
I see also the validity of Lord Winster's point. But I think I can meet both noble Lords. There are three possible ways of getting over the difficulty. First, the Northern Ireland authorities could introduce a test themselves. I believe they are thinking of doing this in a Bill which will shortly be introduced. Second, they could tighten up their scrutiny of the applications in response to which these licences are issued. That also is being done, though, of course, it will not solve the problem entirely. Third, an appropriate clause might be put in this Bill. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that I do not think his Amendment will meet the case. I think he is trying to amend the wrong portion of the Bill. We did at one moment contemplate putting a clause in the Bill, but we withdrew it, because we thought that there were other and more important things upon which to concentrate. But now the matter has

231
been raised we must look at it again. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Burden, not to tie me down to any one of those three methods which I have suggested for dealing with this problem. But I will give him an undertaking that we will consider how to tackle the matter. I ask him to withdraw his Amendment and to allow us to deal with it in whatever way seems best and most sympathetic towards Northern Irish feelings.
LORD BURDEN: In view of the atmosphere in which this Amendment has been discussed, I have much pleasure in asking leave of the Committee to withdraw it. At the same time I am sure Lord Mancroft will not object if I also pick up in regard to this Amendment what his noble and learned friend told me in regard to the previous Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
Road-safety information and road training
8.—(1) The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury—

(a) provide for promoting road safety by disseminating information or advice relating to the use of roads, or

(b) make contributions towards the cost of arrangements made by local authorities and other bodies for the practical training of road users or any class or description of road users.

(2) A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection or for giving such practical training as is mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof, and to make contributions towards the cost of like arrangements made by other authorities or bodies.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (b). The noble and learned Viscount said: It might be convenient if we considered the content of this Amendment and the next Amendment, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and Amendments 46, 47 and 48, because they all deal with the same subject matter and, I hope, clarify the things which we all desire to see clear. The four Government Amendments—and I hope that after consideration Lord Lucas of Chilworth may think that they meet his point; they are certainly intended to do so, and if they do not I shall be very pleased to look at them again—are intended to do five
232
things. They are intended to make it absolutely clear, first, that the Minister may spend money on road safety information; secondly, that the local authorities, as defined in the clause, may spend money on road safety information; thirdly, that the local authorities may spend money on road training; fourthly, that the local authorities may contribute towards road training arrangements made by other authorities or bodies; and fifthly, that the Minister may contribute towards arrangements for road safety information or road training made by the local authorities or other authorities or bodies. I am afraid that the way I have read this out—I have tried to be very quick—makes it sound like an exercise in permutations and combinations. I think, seriously, that it is important that everyone should be in a position to help everyone else and that it should be absolutely clear that they have the right to do it. That is what we have sought to do. I hope that the Committee will approve of our method. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out from ("roads") to end of line 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for moving the Amendment in that way. Subject to anything which my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds has to say on a particular point, I think the Amendment covers what I was seeking to do. May I put it in my own language—not that the noble and learned Viscount was not clear. I would say that these Amendments of the Government give reimbursement to the local authorities for monies dispersed on practical training in road use and safety and also in the dissemination of information regarding road use and safety. I was a little cloudy on this point, and, if the noble and learned Viscount will not mind doing so, I should like him to refer to Section 115 of the Road Traffic Act. I think he is right. I do not want to keep on pressing this point about consolidation, but it is so terribly difficult to have to keep on going back to find the reference of the legislation. If the noble and learned Viscount will take a glance at it, he will see my point. What clouded the issue in my mind was the statement that payments may be made out of the Road Fund for this purpose. Unfortunately, the Road

233
Fund ceases to exist, but that does not matter so long as the money is paid out of a central fund. If the noble and learned Viscount can give me the assurance that there is no attempt to repeal anything in Section 115 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and that these Amendments give the Minister power to reimburse out of central funds, I am prepared to accept the Government's Amendments and not move Amendment No. 45 standing in my name—subject, of course, to anything that my noble friend, Lord Milner of Leeds, has to say on the point.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: It seems to me that I ought to speak at this time or otherwise I may be cut out, if the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is passed. The point of my Amendment, No. 45A, is that for some years local authorities have spent money on road safety propaganda and the Minister has made contributions towards those activities. I gather that it is perfectly clear that the Minister is satisfied that he has power to make these contributions and that he proposes to do so. In point of fact, his power has been extended under subsection (1), because he will be able to make contributions towards the cost of training road users, which, I think, is something new.
That situation is satisfactory, so far as it goes, but an important point of principle is involved. I am informed by the Association of Municipal Corporations that in these cases the Minister does not make grants towards central administration expenses, although such grants would seem to be very necessary. Central administration expenses are that proportion of salaries and wages of local authority staff which can fairly be attributed to time spent by staff on this work. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is in a position to give me any undertaking on that matter, but, as I say, it is one of principle.
I am informed that the Local Government Manpower Committee in their first Report (Cmd. 7870) recommended, as a matter of principle, that all actual expenditure incurred for the purposes of grant-aided services should be admitted for grant, irrespective of whether it related to work which was decentralised and
234
carried out in separate departments or to work carried out centrally in one of the general administrative departments of the local authority. Admittedly, there was an exception in the case of road works, but that does not affect the principle I am putting forward. I shall be glad if the spokesman for the Government can tell me whether the Government are prepared, in the grants they make, to include contributions towards the central administration expense of local authorities. It seems only fair and reasonable that they should do so, and that they should not limit those contributions to the publication of Bills and so on. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount is in a position to give me any assurance on this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can be of some assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on this point. I should be glad to see that what I say now is thoroughly checked, and if there is anything I say which I have to modify in any way, I will write and let the noble Lord know. The object of Amendment 45 is presumably to ensure that the Minister shall be empowered not only to make grants towards the cost of actual disbursements by local authorities in disseminating information and advice but also to make contributions towards such proportion of overhead expenses as can be allocated to road safety work—for example, salaries and office expenses. I understand that the Minister can do this under the clause as it is proposed to be amended by the Government Amendments Nos. 46 and 48, by which the Minister is to be empowered to make contributions towards the cost of arrangements made by a local authority. The determination of how much of such costs is to be attributed towards salaries and office expenses is merely a matter of accountancy. It is not a bar to a contribution towards the cost of arrangements that the cost includes salaries and office expenses.
That is as I am advised on the matter, and that appears to me to be right; but, as I say, if any doubt should arise I will communicate with the noble Lord. But I am advised that the matter is covered. Again, if I may deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the same way, so far as I can see, from listening to the noble Lord, his point

235
is also dealt with satisfactorily. Perhaps he would leave it in the same way and when I read the speeches, if any point should arise, I will communicate with him.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged for what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I do not doubt that the power probably exists now. The point is that apparently the Ministry do not take advantage of it. It may be a matter of administration—I do not know, but if the noble and learned Viscount would be good enough to look into it and let me know, I should be obliged.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I also accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I think he has met me completely, but he will know better than I do whether he has or not, and he can tell me later.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thank both noble Lords very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("paragraph (a) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.9 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (2), after the word "subsection" to insert:
"including publication of leaflets and advertisements arranging lectures, demonstrations and exhibitions, holding competitions, awarding prizes and organising research into the causes of accidents on roads."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the local authorities have power to do the various things mentioned. I may say that these provisions follow the precedent of Section 89 of the West Riding County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951. They would enable local authorities to develop their road safety activities in the most effective manner. Following the usual practice, whereby, when an enterprising local authority like the West Riding County Council obtain a power, that power is later extended generally, it would appear desirable that these powers
236
should be included in this Bill and extended to all local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, after ("subsection") insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will illustrate the difficulty we feel about this Amendment by two proverbs. Surely your Lordships would all applaud the proverb that "Many hands make light work," but your Lordships would equally applaud the proverb that "Too many cooks spoil the broth." The difficulty we are in here is that this Amendment, which has the distinguished ancestry to which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, referred, makes a list of certain matters which are deemed desirable. It stipulates various methods of road safety propaganda which, with the possible exception of organising research into the causes of accidents on roads, will be entirely covered by Clause 8 (2) as at present drafted. I do not think there is any point—in fact, I think it would be a disadvantage—in listing particular powers when the general power is all-embracing. As the noble Lord knows, the trouble about specifying in this detailed way is that it has, and can have, a limiting effect on general words. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, on the merits of the matter, to rest assured that the points on which he is anxious are covered and, on the legal aspect, to prefer the method of safety.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: As I understand it, we are assured that the whole of these powers will be covered under the general terms of the clause. If that is so, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, I want to be absolutely frank and say that there is the possible exception of organising research. I think that is dealt with in another way, and I do not think the noble Lord need worry about it.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("giving") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("practical training to road users or any class or description of road users").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("and the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make contributions towards the cost of any such arrangements as are mentioned in this subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "borough" to insert, "a metropolitan borough." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that metropolitan borough councils are included amongst the local authorities who under this clause will be able to make arrangements for road safety information, road training and so forth. I understand that the metropolitan boroughs have made a request to that effect, and it would seem desirable, and indeed necessary, that they should have these powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, after ("borough") insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
LORD MANCROFT: I can assure the noble Lord that the word "borough" does include "metropolitan borough," and therefore this Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
6.14 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
". The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1934:—
'(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a road in a built-up area at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.
For the purposes of this Act a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area:—

(a) in the case of a road which forms part of a trunk road or a road classified under
238
the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, in Class I, II or III if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon on or before the first day of September nineteen hundred and fifty-five unless a direction that it shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section; or

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

(c) in the case of any such road as aforesaid if a direction that it shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section;

and not otherwise.'"
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that as from September 1, 1955, the lengths of road regarded as being in a built-up area, and thus subject to the general speed limit of 30 miles an hour, shall, in the case of Trunk and Class I, Class II and Class III roads, be altered only by the making of an order. Under the law as it stands at present, if on any length of road a system of street lighting is installed with the lamps not more than 200 yards apart, automatically that length of road becomes subject to the speed limit. In many cases the effect of the installation of street lighting is to make the road more safe, not less safe, and therefore automatic restriction is quite illogical. The Amendment deals only with trunk and classified roads, so that where new residential estates are developing the roads in them will automatically become restricted without the necessity for the making of orders and the consequent waste of administrative time and effort.
When a general speed limit was introduced by the Road Traffic Act, 1934, it was necessary to have some simple method of defining the areas where the speed limit would apply. At that time, generally speaking, the street lamps were installed mainly for the benefit of pedestrians, and therefore the built-up areas were closely related to the areas having street lighting. With the growth of motor traffic and the extension of high intensity street lighting to stretches of main arterial road, the automatic restriction resulting from the provision of such street lighting has become both undesirable and unnecessary. If the Amendment is accepted, in future each length of road

239
where there is a proposal for restriction will have to be considered on its merits.
I realise that there are possible objections to this Amendment. It is believed that the Government may be sympathetic to the acceptance of an Amendment upon these lines. It may, however, be argued that if this Amendment is adopted, in several years' time there may be a dispute as to the date on which the requisite system of street lighting was installed on a particular road. It is suggested that such an objection to the Amendment would be ill based for the following reasons. First, local authorities are under a duty to erect and maintain the appropriate traffic signs indicating restricted and de-restricted lengths of road—I only wish they would do it a little more accurately. If their records are properly maintained, they ought to know which areas need to be signed, and there should, of course, also be an appropriate system of inspection of the signs to see that the authority's statutory obligations are being properly performed.
It is perhaps appropriate to mention here that the compliance of local authorities with their statutory obligations to maintain a small de-restriction sign on all lamp posts situated outside built-up areas leaves much to be desired. As we all know, these signs are very difficult to see. I never can make out why they put these little de-restriction signs for the most part on the top of a lamp-post, because the top of the lamp-post at night is the one place where you can see nothing, as the light is shining on to the road and on to the pavement. In the Annual Reports upon the Road Fund each year information is published in regard to the lengths of roads restricted and de-restricted. I have a number of figures here with regard to restricted and de-restricted roads, and so forth. I do not think I need weary your Lordships with them, but they are available if anybody wants to see them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hampton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, because I have an Amendment down later (No. 54) which purports to do precisely the same thing. After listening to the
240
noble Lord, and having read his Amendment carefully, I prefer his Amendment to mine—perhaps he was fortunate enough to get a better draftsman. I support what the noble Lord has said, and I speak from bitter experience of this matter, having been once connected with the administration of the Act which makes it automatic that a built-up area is an area that has street lamps 200 yards apart. It does not matter whether that area is in the wilds of the country. That has been known. I remember great difficulty at times, when by-passes were built to go round built-up areas, and in order to get sections of them restricted to 30 miles an hour the enterprising local authority put up street lamps 200 yards apart. Automatically the by-pass which was built to circumvent the congestion of the built-up area and the necessity to have a 30 miles an hour limit became a built-up area itself. I think that is wrong, because the trouble that has to be taken to get a stretch of road like that de-restricted really defies description. It takes months and months and months. I agree with the noble Lord that it should be the affirmative process, and not the negative process. In other words, no Class I or trunk road should be a built-up area and subject to a 30 miles an hour limit without an order from the Minister. That is where the noble Lord's Amendment is better than mine, because it might be said that by my Amendment every little street on a housing estate had to go through the same process, which is something I did not intend.
I also agree with the remarks the noble Lord made about the de-restriction signs on the lamp-posts. I know the noble Lord appreciates that as soon as those lamp-posts are up, the local authorities are compelled by law to put a 30 miles an hour disc up. If further lamps are put along this trunk road the sign has to go out still further. Then they have to bring it back when the Minister makes the de-restriction order, which may be six months after the lamp-posts have been put up. They then have to bring it all back and put the black striped discs on the lamp-posts. I want the noble Lord who is to reply to consider this point. Some lamp-posts on some of these roads are 300 yards apart. At night you do not know whether you are in a restricted or a de-restricted area unless you have a steel tape in your pocket and go

241
out and measure the distance, because driving along a dark, wet road, you cannot judge whether the lamps are 200 or 300 yards apart, and you wonder whether they have forgotten to put the black and white discs up. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will accept this Amendment. It is something which is vitally necessary. From my experience in the Ministry I know the Minister will always restrict a road if he thinks it is necessary, but the pressures which are put upon the Minister of Transport not to de-restrict a road are many, varied and very heavy. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, will be sympathetic and will accept this Amendment. I think it is a good one. At least, the principle is unassailable, even if the drafting is not to his liking.
LORD MANCROFT: I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has just said, and in the face of advocacy of such power coming from such diverse quarters as my noble friend, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I have no option but to accept the Amendment. This I will do in principle, as I think it is a change which clearly we ought to make. There have been objections to such a proposal in the past, but I think those objections are no longer very valid. Perhaps there will still be objections—the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned the two principal ones. I think we must run that risk. The main point in support of the Amendment which he made is the fact that nowadays the effect of installation of lighting on a road is to make the road more safe and not in need of restriction. That is a most important point. I can therefore accept the Amendment in principle. I say "in principle" because there may be one or two changes in the drafting which we may have to make. I thank the noble Lord for having put the matter so fully and lucidly.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: I hope I made it clear that I was accepting the Amendment in principle, and I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment now so that we can look at the drafting problems.
LORD HAMPTON: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Section 1 of Act of 1934 to be permanent
9. Section one of the Act of 1934 (which provides for a general speed limit in built-up areas) shall have permanent effect and accordingly subsection (10) of that section (which relates to the duration thereof) is hereby repeated.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to the clause:
"(2) The following subsection shall be added at the end of section one of the Act of 1934:
'(9) For the purposes of this Act a length of road shall, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, not be deemed to be a road in a built-up area unless there is upon such length of road an indication that it is a road in a built-up area by reason of the presence of a system of street lighting with lamp-posts placed not more than 200 yards apart or by the presence of prescribed signs indicating such restriction placed not more than 200 yards apart.'"
The noble Earl said: As we all know, a restricted area is normally indicated by the 30 m.p.h. sign and by the fact that the lamp-posts are not more than 200 yards apart. Under the extreme difficulty of modern traffic, and the extraordinary congestion that one finds, it is easy for a driver, with the best will in the world, and being very anxious to observe the speed limit both in the letter and in the spirit, to pass such a sign—it may be temporarily blanketed, for instance, by another vehicle. If he does find himself in such a road it is true that he should realise that there are lamp posts, but I feel that it is all wrong that the existence of the limit should depend on the presence of lamp posts. Moreover, in the aggregate, there are nearly 2,000 miles of unlit roads which are restricted. They constitute the real trap. Past the restricted sign there is nothing to warn the driver that he is in a restricted road. Therefore, I am asking that in such a restricted road, the restricted sign—if you like in miniature—should be repeated. Personally, I should like to see the restricted sign repeated on all the lamp-posts where they exist, but I realise that that is probably impracticable and would give rise to great expense. I do feel, however, that we ought to remove the anxiety which a driver must feel that he may come on a restricted section of the road when he has not been able to "spot"

243
the restriction sign and when there are no lamp-posts to remind him of the speed limit, and that he may inadvertently break the law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert the said subsection—(Earl Howe.)
LORD STRATHCARRON: Many of your Lordships will know of a stretch of road to which the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might be applied. There is just such a road at Burgh Heath. I duly appeared before the bench and I sought guidance from the chairman. I am afraid that I was not much wiser after his reply, because it was short and sweet—it was, "40s." But he could not really answer my inquiry about how I could have known that this particular road was restricted. I do not feel that it would be an expensive or particularly difficult job to mark all these roads clearly, and it would help to clarify a situation which can be most confusing.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has clearly raised a point which is a safety measure. I do not think anyone can be in any doubt that at various places where a 30 m.p.h. speed limit is imposed there are neither lampposts nor any signs for some distance. As he has said, there are somewhere in the order of 2,000 miles of restricted roads in this country which are not flanked by lamp-posts. I would point out one fact straight away; that is, that this involves expenditure both by local authorities and by the Treasury. My right honourable friend would like to have the opportunity of consulting the local authority associations before finally accepting this Amendment, although in principle he is in entire agreement with what the noble Earl has suggested here. If that procedure is agreeable to him, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment so that this consultation can take place before it is inserted in the Bill.
EARL HOWE: I should like to thank the noble Earl very much for the sympathetic answer he has given. Of course, I shall be delighted to withdraw the Amendment. May I ask him whether it would be in order to replace it on the Marshalled List for the Report stage, or
244
would the Minister simply write and tell us what he is going to do?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly keep the noble Earl informed, but in the ordinary course he should replace it on the Report stage.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.31 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment not with any intention of pressing it but once again to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accede to a request that I made some time ago in your Lordships' House, when I put down a Question, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would have an all-embracing inquiry, in the economic interests of the country and in the interests of all classes of road users, into this general question of the vehicle speed limits. I do not want to say anything that will detract from any argument that may be raised by any noble Lord in your Lordships' House on any Amendment that is to come, but I should like to recall the Answer I received from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The Question I asked was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 190, No. 5, col. 267]:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will have a special inquiry made and a report presented to Parliament on the present road vehicle speed-limit legislation with special reference to its effect upon the national economy and the safety of road users."
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said—I quote a few lines from his reply:
"… my right honourable friend"—
that is the Minister of Transport—
"does not feel that a convincing case has been made out for a general inquiry into vehicle speed-limits."
The only comment I can make about that statement—and it was not an appropriate time to make it on Question and Answer—was that his right honourable friend had been very badly advised, because speed limits applicable to types of vehicles are laid down in the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and were really only applicable to conditions of that age and year and to vehicles of that age and year.
There are fifteen different speed limits (if your Lordships would like to refer to them at any time, they are contained in the First Schedule to the Act of 1930) ranging from three miles per hour for heavy locomotives—that is, traction engines—"within any city, town or village," and five miles per hour "elsewhere." There are numbers of speed limits of eight miles per hour, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, only this afternoon in your Lordships' House has given the anomaly of the 20 m.p.h. limit for vehicles of three tons and over, also referred to by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The permitted maximum speed for any vehicle on the roads of this country, other than a motor car constructed solely for the use of passengers to the number of seven and under, excluding the driver, is thiry miles per hour.
I want to ask the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government how many cases he can give me, in the last measurable period, of a motor coach driver being prosecuted for driving at over thirty miles per hour. The law is absolutely in contempt; and the reason is that it is a foolish law. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, himself who said during the course of our discussions on this Bill: "It is no good trying to enforce a law which does not meet with the approval of the public, or which is inoperable." If the speed limit laws of this country were rigidly enforced, the whole of the road traffic of this country would come to a standstill. There is an overwhelming case for revision. There is an overwhelming case for a thoroughgoing inquiry. Indeed, the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Minister is having one in London, for he has referred the case of the 30 m.p.h. limit to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Is London any different from Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or any other overcrowded city in this country?
We shall argue this matter. Lord Howe will argue it later on, I expect, because there are Amendments down on the speed limit question. Why not clear it up? Why try to enforce regulations which the police do not even attempt to enforce, or to enforce laws passed in 1930 that pay no regard to modern engineering and the great strides that have been made with mechanical perfection? Take the brakes of the
246
modern 36-seater, long-distance coach of to-day and the charabanc of 1930. The vast bulk of the coaches of this country travel at fifty and sixty miles per hour, and in perfect safety. How long can we withstand having some sensible inquiry? I know what the noble Earl's answer will be when he is pressed on a later Amendment to abolish the 20 m.p.h. limit and raise the limit to 30 m.p.h. for all goods vehicles of three tons and over. I am not going to put it into words, but what an opportunity for spineless Governments, who have burked that issue for so many years, to have a public inquiry and the weight of a public inquiry to give them the necessary courage to do it! That goes for all Governments: I am not singling out the present Government for condemnation when I say that.
I will not waste your Lordships' time any more because the case does not need any advocacy. It is outstanding that the whole of the road users of this country, from pedestrians upwards, should be alerted to one of the great problems which we are facing in this country—that is, to get our traffic moving as fast and as safely as we can. We must try to get all classes of traffic travelling at uniform speeds, and not try to amble along under an archaic law that was passed in 1930 and has had little or no revision since. As I told the noble Earl, I shall not press this Amendment. I have no objection to this clause, because it simply means that the speed limit provisions are taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and that in future we shall not have to pass this once a year. If the noble Earl can give me a sympathetic reply on the case of having a thorough investigation into this matter, with a view to having a revision of the speed limit laws of this country, I shall appreciate it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth):
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: All that Clause 9 does is to move the 30 m.p.h. limit from the Expiring Laws Continuance Act into a permanent Statute. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying this, but I had not the faintest idea what he was going to say when he began to move this Amendment—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I apologise for that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I had no idea that the noble Lord wished to raise a debate on the subject of speed limits. I would make just one point. I am not instructed to answer the point which he raised, as he knows perfectly well, but here we are dealing with a Bill which is primarily a safety Bill. The basis of the noble Lord's argument was an all-round increase in the speed of cars. If you are going to revise the speed limit all round, you are not going to revise it downward, you are going to revise it upwards. I cannot say that we are as enthusiastic in regard to that as we are in making a determined inroad into the number of accidents which take place on the roads. I appreciate that there may be a broad case made by the noble Lord, and certainly I will consider the point which he has advanced to-day. I hope, with those few words, that he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl has said precisely what I thought he would. I wanted to bring this home once again to the noble Earl. Will the noble Earl discuss it, and will other senior Ministers on the Front Bench endeavour to see that the Minister looks at this matter? That is my point. I will not prejudice the issue by talking about raising or lowering the limit; I want the whole thing examined, and on that note I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA moved to leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause:
"9.—(1) In subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1934 (which provides for a general speed limit in built-up areas) after the word 'hour' there shall be inserted the words 'between the hours of 5 a.m. and 12 midnight.'
(2) Section one of the Act of 1934 as amended by subsection (1) of this section shall have permanent effect and accordingly subsection (10) of that section (which relates to the duration thereof) is hereby repealed."
The noble Lord said: Before I move my Amendment may I say a word on the speech I made on Second Reading, by which, I am afraid, I offended a magistrate by implying that he had hurried my case through and had not allowed me to ask certain questions. He was much hurt by what I really did not mean to imply,
248
which was that he was hurrying my case. He certainly hurt me, but I did not mean to imply that he was hurrying my case because there were so many motoring cases. Having said that, I come to this Amendment. I do not know whether the Committee will remember that when the 1934 Act was introduced it proposed a speed limit which was going to be rather difficult to push through the House of Commons. We made an arrangement with the Government of the time, that if we could have the speed limit off at certain hours of the night, we should not object to the speed limit during the day. Mr. Oliver Stanley was then Minister of Transport, and by virtue of that pledge things went fairly well and smoothly through Committee. When the Bill came to your Lordships' House, it contained the very words which I am moving in this Amendment, and your Lordships' House eliminated those words. Unfortunately, between the time of the Committee stage of the Bill and its return to another place, there was a change of Minister. The new Minister wanted to get the Bill through, and he never implemented the pledge which the former Minister had given; consequently, I have always considered that we were extremely badly treated over that matter: it was a pledge which the Government did not implement.
This is a fairly simple matter. We have speed limits for the reason that there is traffic and danger at certain times of the day—for example, when school children go to school and when there are crowds. Those are the times when speed limits are desirable. But between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. you will see, by all your records of accidents, that there are no accidents at all; consequently, it is absurd to have a regulation which does no good and which is very often disobeyed. It is absurd to have a speed limit on an open road in the middle of the night. On being caught or trapped by the police, not a single motorist would consider it anything else but a trick to be "had up" at that particular time. I do not plead for the abandonment of speed limits as they are, although one could put up a tremendously strong case for that proposition; but when a speed limit is not necessary, as is the case between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., there is no reason for having it. It was the opinion of the Ministry of Transport at the time; it was the opinion

249
of the Government at the time, and I cannot see that anything has happened since to make them change their minds on what was a satisfactory idea and one which I should like to see reintroduced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
LORD WINSTER: I warmly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I remember when I was a young naval officer being shown an example of how not to give an order. A certain commander of a naval barracks put up a notice in the officers' bathroom: "Order. No officer is to occupy a bath for more than 10 minutes. N.B. This order is to be obeyed." Then came the commander's signature. The lessons I was taught were: first, that it is absurd to make an order and then say that the order is to be obeyed; and, secondly, that it is equally absurd to make an order which you know will not be obeyed and which you know you cannot possibly enforce, because, short of putting a seaman sentry upon each bath, you could not possibly enforce that order. I think some of those considerations apply in this case, because, between the hours of midnight and 5 o'clock in the morning, the 30 miles an hour limit is not obeyed, and there is no reason at all why it should be obeyed, for, as the noble Lord has said, there are no accidents at that time. In any case, there are no means of enforcing that order between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. To enforce it would not only be superfluous but would necessitate keeping on duty men who do not normally have to be on duty at that hour. For those reasons, I think there is great force in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I strongly support it, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
EARL HOWE: I think I ought to say a word at this stage, because, when the matter came before your Lordships' House, I was one of the people who voted for the retention of the speed limit between the hours of twelve midnight and five in the morning. I remember the occasion quite well. Many noble Lords thought it a silly idea to have a speed limit which ended at an arbitrary time, like five minutes to twelve, and to suggest
250
that it was dangerous at five minutes to twelve but was quite all right at five minutes past twelve. I think that was the reason which actuated those of us who voted as we did on that occasion. It is not by any means unknown for drivers to find speed limit patrols working in the small hours of the morning. It is true that it was some time ago, but I myself remember discovering three officers on an open road in Surrey, miles away from any town. A police officer jumped out from a blackberry bush, and that was that; I had "had it." At the same time I do agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. On reflection, and certainly if we in this House had known of the arrangement which had been made in another place on that occasion so long ago, I do not believe we should have voted for retention of the speed limit during the hours of 12 midnight and 5 a.m. Having had experience through all these years, I should be prepared to vote for the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Howe, are perfectly correct in saying that this particular topic had a very chequered Parliamentary career in 1934, well before my time, and any attempt to unravel it from the pages of Hansard and to decide who was in favour of what, and why, would be an extremely difficult task. I suggest that the real criterion now on which to judge the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is to ask, "Will it increase road safety? Will this Amendment, by taking off the speed limit between the hours of 12 midnight and 5 o'clock in the morning, increase safety on the roads?" It is largely a matter of opinion what answer one gives, but there are one or two aspects of the problem which I should like to put before your Lordships for consideration. First, it is not true to say that the speed limit is not enforced at night. It is, of course, not enforced as strictly as it is during the hours of daylight; but I have very vivid memories of being stopped in the main street of Amesbury in Wiltshire during a Territorial camp when I was driving a 3-ton Army lorry at four o'clock in the morning, and spoken to by a police sergeant in what I considered—perhaps not altogether justifiably—the worst possible taste.

251
It is not accurate to say that there are no casualties between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. There are quite a number, though not as many, of course, as during the hours of daylight. I will not weary your Lordships with the figures which I have here, because statistics when read out are neither convincing nor pleasant. But the casualties are still far too high, and between 12 midnight and 1 a.m. nearly as many casualties occur as do during the remaining hours of the night. The figures for the early hours of Sunday morning are alarmingly high, and noble Lords have only to think for a moment of the reason for that to realise that the subject must be treated seriously. I agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the fixing of an arbitrary time, from midnight to 5 a.m., is bound to cause difficulty.
LORD SILKIN: Is the noble Lord giving us here the figures of accidents in built-up areas?
LORD MANCROFT: I imagine they are very largely for built-up areas.
LORD SILKIN: But not specifically so?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid my figures do not give details and I should require notice, but I imagine that very largely they refer to built-up areas. A further point is that when a speed limit is in operation it causes people to avoid driving at 70 m.p.h. and to prefer to travel at 40 m.p.h., even if they do not attempt to keep strictly to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I believe that if the speed limit were taken off people coming out of a party and going home in the small hours of the morning would be under no restraint to drive at a sober pace. I consider that is an important factor. I believe it is also important that one should remember the need to drive at a moderate pace in the early hours of the morning to keep down the noise in built-up areas. I have been dealing with arguments for which it is not easy to provide concrete proof, but I believe that together they provide cumulative evidence that no great improvement in road safety would be achieved by taking off the speed limit between the hours of 12 midnight and 5 a.m., but that to do so would cause an increase in accidents. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment and that he will consider these arguments. I
252
shall be happy to let him have my figures and perhaps he may then consider whether he is able to agree with my thesis. Before asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, may I thank him for the apology he made when he first opened his remarks. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor has also asked me to express his appreciation, and I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear him say this.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel that both the advocacy for this Amendment and the very reasoned reply which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has made pinpoint the whole of my previous Amendment. Such a matter as this should be subject to inquiry, because there is great point in what the noble Lord says. But we have to take into consideration the conditions of 1955 rather than those of 1934, and the great increase in traffic. The Minister of Transport has referred this question of the 30 m.p.h. limit in London to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. I would suggest to the noble Lord that this question should also be referred to that Committee for their opinion. I find myself now between the two sides, for I can see the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the force of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I would ask the noble Lord who moved this Amendment to tell me what good it would do, even though it might not increase road danger. So far as I can see, the only advantage would be to get rid of an irksome restriction. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said that the speed limit does put a sense of responsibility into people. I do not agree, for if the sense of responsibility is not there, and reflected in sober behaviour at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, the mere fact that there is a 30 m.p.h. speed limit will not put it there. While the figures of the noble Lord may well be correct, he cannot tell me that they have been due to excessive speed; they may be due to many other circumstances, apart from the question of sobriety.
I believe there is a real danger that we are apt to go the easy way and to say that speed qua speed is the source of evil; but it is not. The evil is speed by the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time. I should like this question thoroughly examined by impartial

253
people. If the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will forgive me for saying so, he is, and always has been, throughout his life, a special pleader for the taking of risks. We all admire the risks he takes. We congratulate him on a wonderful performance in upholding British prestige in Switzerland only two weeks ago. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with that forensic skill which we admire, is really pleading the case of a Government Department who loathe having the status quo altered; so they are both special pleaders. I believe noble Lords would be content—I feel sure we on this side of the House should—if the noble Lord would reinforce my plea for an inquiry into the whole question of the speed limits, road safety and the economics involved, and would refer this specific matter—as it deals only with built-up areas where a 30 m.p.h. limit is in force—to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
LORD MANCROFT: I will, of course, do everything I can to help the noble Lord. One objection that immediately occurs to me is, however, that the procedure which he wishes me to adopt would not be altogether suitable because the Committee could only consider the problem as it arises in the Home Counties. But I will certainly look at the point again, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will agree to withdraw his Amendment. I am not certain what is the best way of meeting Lord Lucas of Chilworth's request for an inquiry into the matter—on this I should like to have the opportunity of consulting my noble friend Lord Selkirk—and I do not wish to make promises to which I cannot give effect. I shall, however, investigate whether anything can be done.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My whole point is that what we all want to do is to carry public opinion—that is absolutely necessary. Public opinion requires a lead; and it will not get one unless there is a representative inquiry. I suggested referring this matter to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee only because that body is sitting on this particular problem in London at the present time. My advocacy was for an overall inquiry, because this is a problem which affects Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, and any other city one likes to mention. We really have got
254
into a jam on this question in present conditions, and I think that a thorough examination is necessary to determine the right attitude to the question of a speed limit.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord replies I should like to say just a word—and I hope that my noble friend will not mind my intervening at this stage. Of course, no one could object to an inquiry at any time. If it is possible to have an inquiry on this point by all means have one. But I should like the noble Lord to appreciate that there are some noble Lords who feel that speed is an important factor in road accidents and who are not wholly enthusiastic about this particular Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the best thing I can do to satisfy everyone is to consult with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, tell him exactly what has happened, inform him of the views that have been expressed, and then let your Lordships know what we can best do to meet this valid point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we must carry public opinion with us. But I would differ from him when he says that the Government wish to keep this speed limit merely because a Government Department is unwilling to consider any change in the status quo. I should not be prepared to argue the case on that basis. I feel that public confidence in the efficacy of the speed limit would be weakened if there were any serious relaxation in its requirements. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will agree to withdraw his Amendment so that I may have the opportunity of discussing the matter with my right honourable friend. If he will, I shall represent his views as strongly as I shall represent those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Before I withdraw the Amendment, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on having made a second speech on his own Amendment, which I thought was extremely ingenious of him. But I do not like his saying that I have taken risks all my life. I can assure your Lordships that I am one of the most careful drivers in London. I do not say that I do not go fast in other places—but that one is entitled to do.

255
On this question of speed limits to be enforced at certain times, Lord Howe suggested that it was rather ridiculous to have one law applied at one time and to change it at another. But surely we are used to that sort of thing in the licensing laws. It is an offence to drink at one time but not an offence to do so at another, perhaps only live minutes later. We are all used to that—or at least everyone who drinks is used to it. What I should like to put to my noble friend, if he will bear with me, is this. Will those conducting the inquiry into this matter bear in mind the fact that there may be a new type of speed limit in which hours of the day come in? I know of many roads used by school children, and at certain times the danger at these places is very great, and the speed limit should be very low. But to have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit there between two o'clock and six o'clock in the morning is to bring the law into disrepute and contempt. It is this sort of thing which we want considered, with the possibility of future legislation. If my noble friend will say that he will look into this I will certainly withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish to correct any wrong impression which I may have given when I said that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, had taken risks all his life. I certainly did not mean that to apply to him as a motorist.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I only want to say this. I have listened to my noble friends, Lork Selkirk and Lord Mancroft, and I thought that they took a very sensible line. They did not agree to an inquiry: they said that they would get into touch with the Minister of Transport and put before him fully everything that has been said to-day. I do not think that they could have gone further than that. I got some impression from the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that he thought the Government had agreed to an inquiry. My noble friends cannot do that—at least we should be very rash to do that without consulting the Minister of Transport.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: But if we make out a good case the Minister may well consider it a good thing to have
256
such an inquiry. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.7 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the House resumes it will perhaps be useful if I tell your Lordships of the future dates for the various stages of this Bill. What we propose is to resume the Committee stage on Tuesday next at 4 p.m., after concluding the business on the other Bills which are set down for that afternoon. There are four small Bills to be disposed of. As soon as we have done that we will come back to this Bill. We shall sit until seven o'clock or half past seven that evening, and we hope to be able to conclude the Committee stage on the following Tuesday, March 1, when the Bill will be first Order at half past two—that is to say, there will be two more days for the Committee stage. The Government are anxious not to hustle the House in any way over this Bill: we regard it as most important that it should have the fullest consideration. The Report stage would then be taken on Monday, March 14 (which should give practically a fortnight between the Committee stage and the Report stage, allowing any consultations that may be necessary), and also the following day, if necessary; that is to say, two days will be devoted to the Report stage, if needed. The Third Reading would be taken on Tuesday, March 22. I hope that that programme will be satisfactory to the House.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, may I say I am grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for what he has said. It is quite acceptable to us, and on behalf of noble Lords here I should like to thank him for the consideration which he has shown, and for the time he has allowed the House for this very important Bill.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: May I ask the noble Marquess if, when he said four o'clock on Tuesday next, he really meant that; or did he mean when first Orders were over?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that I meant when first Orders were over. But we hope that that will be by four o'clock.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.