Lords Sitting of 1 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  UNIVERSITY OF HULL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH AIRPORTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Thurso, who much regrets that he is unable to be in his place to-day, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what specific plans are included in the Government's schemes for road construction and railway re-equipment for improving the communications of Heathrow and other principal airports in the United Kingdom; and whether the use of the Monorail is under consideration for this purpose.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have had under constant review the possibility of improving the communications between city centres and major airports throughout the United Kingdom, and of course to London Airport. Many different proposals have been considered, including the possibility of using Monorail. Her Majesty's Government would be glad to entertain any such proposals of a practical character. It is, however, perhaps fair to say that we have no reason to believe that a Monorail would be competitive with orthodox transport systems. Moreover, elevated railways, where they are in use, as in the United States, are now being rapidly abandoned.
The proposals for the improvement of roads and the programme for re-equipment of the railways recently announced
590
have not yet reached the stage when their full effect on airports can be specified. I can, however, say that the rail services to Gatwick will be greatly improved when the airport comes into operation. Work on the extension of Cromwell Road will commence in a few weeks; this will in general provide a 30 feet dual carriageway and a flyover at the junction with the Great West Road at Brentford, and should make the journey from London Airport to Central London very much easier.
LORD REA: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that clear and helpful answer, may I ask whether he can give some assurance that there will be co-ordination of this type of financial assistance between rail, sea and air transport? I have in mind, particularly, the proposed payment of some £12 million to the packet ports as a basic sum. Can he say that air and rail will also be viewed in a similarly favourable light?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord remembers that my right honourable friend is Minister of Civil Aviation as well as Minister of Transport, and I am certain that he has the interests of civil aviation clearly in mind. It is difficult in question and answer to give a precise comparison with what the noble Lord said, but in general the railway scheme, which I believe includes the packet ports, is by way of being an investment—that is to say, it authorises capital investment—whereas road expenditure is in the form of a grant. However, I will see that the point is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does not the answer of the noble Earl really mean that it will be a period of years—his guess is probably a good deal better than mine, but at least three, four or five years—before the improvements in communications between Heathrow and the Central London area can come into being? It is impossible to make a new road in that time. Furthermore, is it not a fact that, to a certain extent, the proposals of the Minister have been stymied by the amenity consideration? Is the noble Earl not also aware that there was a monorail system operating between Berlin and Hamburg before the war which went extremely well? Does the Answer of the

591
noble Earl really turn down all hope on this matter, or is it still being carefully considered, as I hope it will be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: All these proposals necessarily have, to some extent, an amenity aspect, and I do not think anyone in the House would like that to be entirely disregarded. If the noble Earl knows any way in which, in less than a year or two, the transport facilities between Central London and Heathrow can be improved, I am sure he will let us know; and if he thinks there is a practical and proved way of operating Monorail which would help on an economic basis, we should also be glad, as I said in my original Answer, to entertain a proposal of that character. Unfortunately, at present we do not know of any.
EARL HOWE: Is it not true to say, also, that if the traffic goes on expanding at the present rate, the position in regard to Heathrow will become impossible in a few years' time? Can this be treated as a matter of real urgency? At the present, the air traveller can spend more time in a car than he spends in the air, and that situation is likely to continue for some time.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Government are taking action in the way that I have suggested. If the noble Earl knows of better ways of doing it, then we shall be only too glad to entertain the proposals.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I suggest that there is a better way of doing it, and that is by creating in the centre of London and other large cities helicopter stations to serve the airports? That method, incidentally, would not involve any of these expensive projects which have been suggested. What are Her Majesty's Government doing in this Year of Grace to foster the creation of air-stops in the centres of cities?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that is going rather wide from where we started, although I agree it is an important matter.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I asked the question because I thought that it arose out of the original reply of the noble Earl, in which he mentioned helicopters.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I did not, in fact, mention helicopters.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK WITHDRAWALS
2.40 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is now possible to increase the amount which can be taken out of the Post Office Savings Bank on demand.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the present limit of £3 for withdrawals on demand was fixed in 1929. The value of money is much less now than it was then and I think that a higher limit would be much more convenient. I propose, therefore, to increase it to £10 and am laying the necessary draft regulations before Parliament today. But this increase will give greater scope for fraud and so, for amounts exceeding £3, I propose to revive the pre-war practice of impounding the book for central examination after each withdrawal. The present practice of impounding the book when two pages are full will continue to apply for amounts up to £3. I hope to start these arrangements in May.
I should also like to mention two minor changes in Savings Bank facilities. First, the same draft regulations provide for an increase in the limit for withdrawals made by telegram both ways from £10 to £25. Second, because of increased costs since the present charge was fixed before the war, we shall have to charge 8d. instead of 4d. per transaction from 1st July for our periodic payments service. This increase will apply only to new contracts.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, may I say that I am sure many people in this country will be grateful for this new concession.

FISHERIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.44 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 BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 16 [Operation of driving disqualifications]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I am sure the Committee will be delighted to hear that on this the sixth day of our marathon Committee stage we start off with a drafting Amendment that is so uncontroversial that I defy even myself to make a speech upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("or the Act of 1934").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, too, is little more than a drafting Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, suggested that words similar to those proposed in this Amendment should be substituted for the words, "he was not disqualified" in line 21. To cover all the types of case, however, it is necessary to have both. For example, if the court convict, but for special reasons do not disqualify, and the police appeal against the decision, there will be a period during which the convicted person is not disqualified. Alternatively, if the court do disqualify and a convicted person appeals, there will be a period during which the disqualification is suspended. It is to meet this case that the Amendment is set down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 21, after ("which") insert ("the disqualification was suspended or").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after sub-section (1) to insert:
"(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2) of section six of the Act of 1930:—
'(2) A person who by virtue of an order of a court or of a conviction under this part of this Act is disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence may appeal against such disqualification in the same manner as against a conviction, and pending the appeal the operation of the sentence of disqualification shall be suspended.'"
The noble Lord said: This clause, as drafted, quite properly provides that, where a disqualification is suspended pending an appeal, if the conviction is confirmed on appeal and the sentence of disqualification stands the accused shall serve the full period of his disqualification and will not have it reduced by the period by which it was suspended pending the hearing of the appeal. The Amendment proposed is intended to clarify the law. I think there have been doubts as to the powers of the court to suspend a sentence of disqualification, pending an appeal, where such disqualification operated automatically upon a conviction by virtue of the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts. The Amendment provides that the lodging of an appeal shall automatically suspend the operation of sentence of driving disqualification until the appeal is abandoned or the appeal is heard. In the absence of such a provision, I would say that a grave injustice may be done. A court may impose a sentence of disqualification, and the unfortunate accused may have served most of the suspension before the appeal court hears the appeal and quashes the sentence of disqualification. In the case of a fine, the matter can usually be rectified by repayment of the fine, but disqualification may have the most serious consequences on an accused. For instance, if he is a commercial traveller, it may entirely prevent him from carrying on his business if he is unable to obtain someone to drive him, which in many cases would be most expensive and difficult for him to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 22 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is quite right—this is a rather complicated and difficult little point. It arises out of the working of the

595
1934 Act, with particular reference to the "special reasons" defence. It has not, I think, worked out quite in the way in which it was expected at the time. It is the regular practice, at least where conviction would lead to automatic disqualification, for a defendant to try to induce the court to find "special reasons" for not disqualifying; and the courts, as I think your Lordships know, have shown a considerable readiness to find such reasons. So much so, that it was necessary for the High Court some years ago to lay down that "special reasons" must be special to the offence and not to the offender.
I feel there is some substance in the argument which the noble Lord has put forward, and I think I can meet him in some degree. His Amendment is intended to provide an appeal against automatic disqualification on conviction without there being an appeal against the conviction itself. Where disqualification automatically follows conviction, what the court are, in effect, saying is that in their judgment there are no "special reasons"—to which I have just referred—for not disqualifying. The noble Lord clearly holds that it should be open to the motorist to challenge the court's view on this point, and I think there is some substance in that contention. I would, however, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, for the reason that I will now give, and to accept my assurance that I will try to meet him on that important point.
The reason why I cannot meet him the whole way is this: the Amendment would also have the effect, even in cases where the disqualification was imposed by order of the court, of automatically suspending the disqualification pending the appeal. This would remove all discretion from the courts on that point. At present, I may remind your Lordships, it is within the court's discretion to suspend the operation of the disqualification order pending the appeal. I feel strongly that the suspension of disqualification should be entirely at the court's discretion. On that point, I hope that I carry the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, with me. I think that if we can get together I can meet him on the real point of substance in his Amendment and produce something which will cover what might be a real hardship.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Additional provisions as to production and surrender of driving licences, etc.
(4) Subsection (5) of section four and subsection (1) of section forty of the Act of 1930 (under which a person driving a motor vehicle on a road may be required by a police constable to produce his licence for examination and to give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and to produce his certificate of insurance or similar document) shall have effect as if the references therein to a person driving a motor vehicle included references to—
(b) any person whom a police constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road; and
2.51 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, in the absence of Lord Somers and Lord Derwent, I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is felt that paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 17 is far too wide and gives far too wide powers to the police. It would enable the police to enter your house or office and demand to see your driving licence, if they think you may have committed any offence; it may merely be some minor offence, such as a parking offence or technical obstruction, or having a driving licence or car licence a few days out of date. While paragraph (a) and (c) seem quite reasonable, I feel that paragraph (b) gives far too wide powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Gifford that this power for which the police are now asking will occasion any hardship at all or goes further than is necessary. May I remind your Lordships how the law now stands and why this slight extension is needed? Clause 17 (4) extends the powers given to the police by Sections 4 (5) and 40 (1) of the 1930 Act, under which a person driving a motor vehicle on a road may be required by a police constable to produce his licence for examination, to give his name and address

597
and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, and to produce his certificate of insurance or similar document. Under the present clause, these powers are confined to persons driving motor vehicles on the roads. Clause 17 (4), which we are now discussing, extends them to cover, among others
"any person whom a police constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road. …"
As long ago as 1937 the police found that their powers under the 1930 Act were insufficient. They asked for them to be extended in the sense which is now proposed in this clause. It was said then, and it has been frequently argued since—and I think with force—that it is a very great handicap to the police not to be able to demand production of the licence and name and address of a person believed to have committed an offence once his motor vehicle has left the road.
Lord Gifford's Amendment seeks to delete this provision in Clause 17, and I think that it would place an unreasonable handicap on the police in their attempt to seek out offenders in the way we are now discussing. The noble Lord talked about persons at home. That is an extreme case. But the case I have in mind, where the inability of the police to ask for the licence may be a real handicap, is in the case of a car, say, in the car park of a public-house. It seems a little illogical that the police can demand to see one's licence on the road but not when one has taken the car into the car park of a public-house. This is not an extreme demand at all, and I think it is nothing which anybody with a clear conscience would resent in any way. The police have always exercised extreme tact and discretion in the use of the existing power, and they can be relied upon not to make excessive use of the very small extension proposed. It is one which will help the police in the execution of their duty and the prevention of road accidents and the promotion of safety. I ask your Lordships to consider that this is not an unreasonable provision, and to allow it to remain in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord a question, for purposes of elucidation? The noble Lord will remember, I am sure, the very friendly passage of arms we had yesterday afternoon on the powers of the car
598
park attendant upon one of the designated car parks to enforce the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord gave me an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that these car park attendants were not going to usurp the functions of the police at all, and so when it is necessary, in a distant town other than the place where the offence was committed on the car park, to establish who was either the owner of the car or the driver of the car on the car park the police will have to make an inquiry—the police, not the car park attendant in civilian clothes. The police will come to the private individual's house. Would the noble Lord tell me; does he interpret an offence on a designated car park, which will be a car park on a highway, as an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road?
LORD MANCROFT: I shall have to look at that problem carefully. I do not want to give the noble Lord an explanation that amounts to bad law. I will certainly look at it and take advice and give the answer. At the moment, however, I do not quite see the relationship between the two. We are talking here about offences with a vehicle on a road; that is, driving offences, speeding or some such offence. That is what we are primarily concerned with and I do not see the relationship between that and a technical offence in a car park; but I do not want to be categorical.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord will take his research a little further. Under this Bill we shall create a whole new lot of offences, because the new designated car parks will be on roads, physically. If he would look at the law in relation to that, I should be grateful.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask two questions of the noble Lord? Does the procedure under Clause 17 in any way vary or extend the existing law with regard to the entry of police constables on to private premises? Secondly, may I take it that Clause 17 does not interfere in any way with the existing procedure whereby the owner of a motor car can within five days take his licence and his insurance certificate to a designated police station?
LORD MANCROFT: I think I can answer the noble Lord straight away. The answer to both his questions is "No."
EARL HOWE: Thank you.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I do not wish to press this Amendment. But I gather from what he has said that he does not visualise this provision being brought into play for technical parking or obstruction offences, but rather for driving offences on the road. If he would look into the matter a little more closely to see how it concerns the parking offences, I think it would relieve the minds of the public.
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly do that.
LORD GIFFORD: Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
3.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the holder").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Circumstances affecting classification of vehicles under last foregoing section
(2) A public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares shall be treated as a contract carriage, and not as a stage carriage or an express carriage, when used in circumstances in which the conditions set out in either Part III or Part IV of the Second Schedule to this Act are fulfilled.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), after "used" to insert:
"elsewhere than in the City of Westminster and the City of London and"
The noble Earl said: I hope the Committee will bear with me while I explain what is a rather more complicated Amendment that it might seem to be. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is provided that a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares in circumstances in which the conditions set out in Parts III and IV of the Second
600
Schedule to the Bill are fulfilled, shall be treated as a contract carriage, which means that the operator of the vehicle will not be required to apply to the licensing authority for a permit in respect of the journey. Part III of the Second Schedule refers to parties of overseas visitors, and the only condition which must be fulfilled here to enable advantage to be taken of the Bill is that each of the passengers must have been outside Great Britain at the time of concluding his arrangements to make the journey. Part IV of the Second Schedule relates to the operation of vehicles for special occasions, the most important conditions to be fulfilled being that the arrangements for the bringing together of the passengers shall not have been made by the vehicle operator and that the journey must not have been advertised.
Under the existing law, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, vehicle operators catering for both overseas visitors and for special occasions must apply to the licensing authority for permission to operate a vehicle on such a journey. The effect of the Bill, by relieving the operators of vehicles from this necessity, will be that, so long as the conditions of either Part III (to which I have just referred) or Part IV of the Second Schedule are fulfilled, passenger vehicles may be operated without restriction of any sort. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the existing system, whereby application must be made to the licensing authority for the metropolitan area for any journey on which passengers are carried at separate fares, shall continue to operate within the congested area of Central London.
For the sake of convenience, the Amendment defines this area as the cities of Westminster and London, but it should be emphasised that the area actually concerned is that bounded on the south by the Embankment, on the west by Park Lane and on the north by Oxford Street, in addition to the City of London itself. If the principle of the Amendment were accepted by the Government, it would have to be made clear that the whole of Oxford Street was included in the area. Half of Oxford Street is within the borough of Marylebone, and is not in fact covered by the Amendment. The proprietors of a great number of public service vehicles in the central area of London, such as taxicabs, fear that the

601
abandonment of the present restrictions on coach traffic within Central London will mean not only that will there be more of this traffic on the already overcrowded streets, but that these cumbersome vehicles, which are not designed for London streets, will be operated when and how their operators like, without any restriction on number, time or method, It would be impossible for the police or other authorities to have prior knowledge of the operation and to refuse to accept the traffic when it is known that conditions will not permit of its being handled at any particular place or time.
The objections to the proposals of the Bill are based on the amount of available road space in the central area of London. If a number of motor coaches under Part III and Part IV of the Schedule were suddenly to appear, without any warning to the police or the licensing authority, or to anybody else, they would be at liberty to go down such a street as Bond Street. The whole of the traffic in the central area, and many other streets in the City of London, would be literally in a state of complete chaos. Under the present system, those responsible for the control of traffic are warned, from the details supplied in applications for licences, what the operators contemplate; and the licensing authority, when granting an application, permit a stated number of vehicles—they have a restriction: they are able to stop an unlimited number of vehicles from doing just what they want—to be operated at definite places, at definite times, under definite conditions. Furthermore, traffic returns are made by the operators in order to prove the need for the continuance of licences.
So far as Part III of the Second Schedule is concerned, which relates only to parties of overseas visitors, it will be argued by the tourist trade that this service is demanded by visitors from abroad, and it is agreed that everything reasonable should be done to facilitate that. At the same time, it is submitted that there must be due regard to the actual physical capacity of the streets in the central area of London. The matter must be tackled on much the lines adopted now, whereby the operators have to give a regular programme to the licensing authority, and, of course, the police are ipso facto informed. The services provided by vehicle operators for overseas visitors
602
include, first, meeting the parties at the main railway termini, taking them to their hotel and returning them from their hotel to the point of departure at the end of their stay; and, secondly, taking the visitors on tours, both inside and outside London.
I submit that the proposal in this Amendment is a reasonable one to which the Government should give consideration. It is probably of interest in this connection to know that the average speed of the London omnibuses at the present moment is eleven miles per hour, against sixteen miles per hour in the Provinces. If the speed of London omnibuses could be increased by only one mile per hour, it would mean a saving to London Transport of £2 million a year. I think, therefore, that we must give very serious consideration to this proposal, because, as this Bill stands, or as it will leave us when it is eventually passed into law, it may well be that, so far from London traffic being speeded up in the central area, the speed may be very much decreased. That would be a most important matter for London Transport, and could eventually lead to a further increase in the fares on London buses in the central area. I am sure we must do all we can to avoid that. Of course, there are further considerations, like the amount of fumes that a larger number of heavy vehicles will emit in the central area, but I will not touch on that. The reasons behind this Amendment are quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 3, after ("used") insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I hope the noble Earl beside me will forgive me if in this instance I cannot agree with him. It seems to me that, if this Amendment is accepted, coaches carrying private parties into the cities of Westminster and London will require to have a road service licence.
EARL HOWE: As they do now.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I submit that for all practical purposes, this would put a stop to most of the private parties going into the two cities, and I should have thought it was contrary to the Government's policy in regard to contract carriage work. I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Earl about further

603
congestion of the streets, but I would remind him that against that we have to weigh the tourist traffic which we are trying to attract to this country; many contract parties take visitors from abroad around places of interest within the two cities. If I am correctly informed, I think the effect of having a road service licence would be that the police would be able to control the routes and stopping points of the contract carriages—a power which they have never had heretofore, and which would be most unwelcome to the operators. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be accepted.
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Rothes. I think that if this Amendment were agreed to it would be a tremendous handicap to the tourist industry and would put on the conducting of parties of tourists from overseas restrictions which do not exist in any other capital city of Europe. In view of the fact that the tourist industry is of such great value to this country, I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is concerned at the congestion in central parts of London, particularly in Westminster and the City, which may arise through the visits to those parts of omnibuses or passenger service vehicles on contract. I very much hope that the arrangements we have made in the Second Schedule will not lead to a vast extension of contract carriage work. The noble Earl will appreciate that, in accordance with the suggestions we make in that Schedule, this traffic cannot be run on a commercial basis by which I mean that no travel agency can run contract carriages of this sort, except, of course, when the passengers come from abroad. Accordingly, I do not see that there should be so vast an extension of this kind of work as the noble Earl envisages. I thought, moreover, that he suggested or implied that these journeys are quite valueless. I say, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, that surely they have considerable educational value. I think it is important that people from the country should be able to come and see Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's or the other great institutions in the City of London or this town, and be fairly free to do so.
EARL HOWE: I hope the noble Earl will forgive my interrupting, but I did not use any form of words such as he has put into my mouth.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But the noble Earl is differentiating between this form of traffic and other forms of traffic. He is putting a complete bar on this traffic which he is not putting on any other traffic, and in doing so is suggesting that it is a form of traffic which is quite valueless. Perhaps I am quite wrong in saying that.
EARL HOWE: That was not my point at all.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is rather a drastic and clumsy way of dealing with the matter. It would put an extremely heavy burden on the licensing authority, and one which I do not think they are fitted to deal with. The problem is much less one of route than of stopping and allowing passengers to dismount. That, I think, together with the question of where the buses are to be left when the passengers leave them, is the real problem. It is the essential problem and it is not one which is dealt with so much by the licensing authority as by the police.
I can say in regard to this matter that we are at present considering certain proposals which have been made by the police in order to regulate this particular point. I hope that in the fairly near future these proposals will reach the stage where they can be submitted to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. My right honourable friend has power to deal with this matter, but he is anxious to do so in a way which is fair both to the visiting parties and to the residents of London; and if he can find a way of doing that, he will put it to the Advisory Committee. We hope that it will be possible for these arrangements to begin to operate this summer—that is to say, that the parking arrangements, particularly of these vehicles, will be more carefully regulated to avoid the congestion which the noble Earl speaks of. As we have powers to do so at present, I think that is the better way to proceed, and I should be glad if the noble Earl would withdraw this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: The noble Earl who has just spoken has said that this

605
Bill will not lead to a vast extension in the number of contract carriages. I think the Committee should know that the real reason for this Amendment is the fear of the taxicab proprietors that they will lose business. In view of the fact that there is going to be no great increase in contract carriages, they need have no fear that they will be affected.
EARL HOWE: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has expressed a certain amount of fear with regard to the possible extension of contract carriages. There is nothing that I know of in the Schedules, or in the Bill itself, to prevent a large extension, if it should take place. Surely we do not want the traffic, already so hopelessly congested in the central areas, to be completely brought to a standstill by a large increase in the number of motor coaches coming to London. In all this, we are talking hypothetically, but I feel that there is a possibility of what I envisage happening. If that is so, the question of the route which these vehicles might take becomes of absolutely first importance.
If the noble Earl can assure me that in the proposals which the Minister is going to make to the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee and the police he will retain control of the whole matter, so as to prevent a large incursion by a number of unsuitable vehicles into narrow and already congested streets, I, and I am sure everybody else, will be quite satisfied. This is a matter of first importance to London traffic, not only to taxicab operators but to everybody else who has to use the streets, including the London Passenger Transport Board. So long as I am assured that the Minister will retain sufficient powers, either under this Bill or in some other way, to deal with the routes taken by these vehicles and with their numbers, I shall be absolutely satisfied. I simply do not want a large incursion of motor coaches into such streets as Bond Street or anywhere in the City, for quite obvious reasons.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I entirely agree with the noble Earl in saying that. This is a facet of our traffic problem which my right honourable friend has very much in mind. All I sought to say was that I thought the noble Earl's proposals were too drastic. I think I can set his mind entirely at rest by recalling to him Section 10 of the London Traffic Act,
606
1924. There, the Minister has power to prescribe streets which are not to be used for traffic of a specified class, and he also has power to prescribe streets where vehicles of any particular class may or may not wait. I am not in a position to say in exactly which way those powers will be used in conjunction with the police, but this matter is under consideration, as I have said, and we hope to be able to begin this new arrangement this summer.
EARL HOWE: Would the noble Earl be able to say anything about this on Report stage, or would it take longer than that?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that I shall not be able to do that, because this matter will have to go before the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee before it can be dealt with finally. But I will certainly inform the noble Earl as soon as I have any information.
EARL HOWE: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 81 of the Act of 1930
"22.—(1) For subsection (1) of section eighty-one of the Act of 1930 (which provides for appeals to the Minister in connection with public service vehicle licences, road service licences and certificates of fitness) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'Any person who—

(a) being an applicant for the grant of a public service vehicle licence or road service licence, is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the commissioners to grant the licence, or with any condition imposed by the commissioners; or

(b) being the holder of a road service licence, is aggrieved by the refusal of the commissioners to entertain an application made by him for the variation of the conditions attached to the licence; or

(c) being, an applicant for the variation of conditions attached to a road service licence, whose application the commissioners have not within the prescribed time refused to entertain, is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the commissioners to make the variation; or

607

(d) being a local authority which, or a person providing transport facilities who, has opposed the grant or variation of a road service licence, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition or by any variation of the conditions attached thereto; or

(e) being the holder of a public service vehicle licence or road service licence, is aggrieved at the revocation or suspension thereof by the commissioners, or by any variation of the conditions attached thereto; or

(f) being the holder of a public service vehicle licence, is agrieved by the refusal of a certifying officer to remove the suspension thereof; or

(g) being an applicant for or the holder of a certificate of fitness, is aggrieved by the refusal of a certifying officer to issue such a certificate or by the limitation of its duration proposed by the certifying officer or by the revocation of a certificate;

may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the Minister:
Provided that an applicant for the variation of the conditions attached to a road service licence shall not be entitled to appeal to the Minister from the refusal or failure of the commissioners to entertain the application without the consent of the commissioners or of the Minister.'
(2) In subsection (4) of the said section eighty-one there shall be inserted at the end of the subsection the words 'unless the variation was made pursuant to an application made by the holder of the licence'."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a complicated but, I submit, a very important Amendment and one which I am moving on behalf of the Public Transport Association and the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association. Moreover, I strongly suspect that the Municipal Passenger Transport Association and the British Transport Commission's bus companies, and even the traffic commissioners themselves, would not be averse to it. The Amendment follows exactly the recommendations of the Thesiger Committee in paragraph 59 of their Report. Under Section 72 of the 1930 Act the holder of a road service licence can apply to the traffic commissioners for what is technically known as a "variation of the conditions of his licence." This is, in fact, the procedure under the Act whereby alterations in fares or time tables are normally dealt with. Under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, if the traffic commissioners take the initiative and decide to vary the conditions of the holder's licence, either as regards fares or timetable, the holder of a road service
608
licence has a right of appeal to the Minister. If, on the other hand, the holder of a road service licence takes the initiative and asks the traffic commissioners to vary the conditions of his licence and they fail to do so, then the holder of the licence has no such right of appeal to the Minister.
This covers not only the exceptional cases where the traffic commissioners do not come to any decision as to whether or not they will hear the application within a time which my Amendment suggests should be prescribed by the Minister, but also cases more likely to occur in practice, where the traffic commissioners do consider the application and refuse it. Here the Amendment, under paragraph (c), would enable the applicant to appeal to the Minister. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment provides that an appeal shall lie from the refusal of the transport commissioners to entertain an application for variation—that is, a refusal to consider it at all. As noble Lords will see from the proviso to the Amendment, in such a case an appeal lies only with the consent of the transport commissioners or of the Minister. This follows the view accepted by the Thesiger Committee in paragraph 59 that while
"the right might rarely be resorted to in practice, … it would, however, be a valuable safeguard against the possibility of arbitrary action by the licensing authority."
A different but also important point arises under subsection (2). The object here is to try to remedy a defect which has recently come to light in the operation of Section 81 of the Act of 1930. Subsection (4) of that section provides that where the holder of a licence appeals against any variation, the variation shall not have effect until any appeal against it has been disposed of. In practice this has led to delays to the detriment of the holder of a road service licence, delays which I believe were never intended. If, for example, an operator applies for a large number of variations in his fares and the majority of these increases are granted but a minority of them are not granted he would not, under the provision if it is strictly construed, be entitled to charge any of the increased fares which had been granted until his appeal against the minority which had not been granted had been disposed of. In such circumstances it may mean that a licence holder would not be entitled for many months to

609
charge any of the increased fares which had been approved. I do not consider that to be either fair or equitable, or that it was the intended result of the procedure originally laid down. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is intended to remedy this defect by amending subsection (4) of Section 81 of the 1930 Act so that it will not apply where the application for variation is made by the holder of the road service licence.
I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment. He may suggest that, as a recommendation of the Thesiger Committee, it should await a subsequent Bill at some future date when that Report is dealt with. I very much hope that he will not suggest a delay of that kind, as this Amendment is regarded by all concerned as of great urgency and importance. If it were any assistance to my noble friend to know this, I would say that those on whose behalf I am moving this Amendment would, if the Amendment were accepted, undertake not to seek for the implementation in this Bill of any of the other recommendations of the Thesiger Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a fairly complicated matter but it is a subject which has been thoroughly examined by the Thesiger Committee, and I think there is general agreement with the manner in which that Committee set about its task. It is felt that this is probably a fair improvement to the methods of using the licensing machinery. It gives an additional appeal which, in certain circumstances, is considered fair and proper. But we should like to go the whole way with the Thesiger Committee in this matter, and to add to the Amendment a provision whereby other operators who have made representations on the proposal to vary and who are on a nearby route should also have the opportunity of appealing to the Minister; and, equally, that local authorities in the area affected who have made representations should also have that right. If the noble Earl is prepared to agree to that general proposal, and one or two other points of clarification which we might find it desirable to suggest to him, I should be glad to accept his
610
Amendment in principle. Perhaps on the Report stage the noble Earl would move it, or it might be done by Her Majesty's Government. If the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Amendment now I shall be glad to see that that is done before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am grateful to my noble friend. I understand that he accepts the Amendment in principle, and perhaps it will be possible for me to consult with him between now and the Report stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: This Amendment speaks for itself. There have been cases where the operator has been proceeded against and fined. He has taken every possible step to ensure compliance with the law, but notwithstanding that, he has been dealt with. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause:
Amendment of s. 16 of Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933
(".Section sixteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to the keeping of records as to hours of work journeys loads and other matters) shall be read and have effect as if at the end of subsection (5) thereof there were inserted the following words:
'Provided that it shall be a defence in any proceedings brought under this section against the holder of a licence to prove that the holder of the licence took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section and of the regulations made thereunder and that the offence was committed without his knowledge'.")—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid this is not quite so simple a matter as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made out. Superficially the point with which he has tried to deal in his Amendment is a very reasonable one—the protection of a man who has done everything within his power to stay within the law and who, through no fault of his own, has committed what might appear to be a technical offence. But were we to accept this Amendment, we might well lay ourselves open to committing something much more serious. I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I explain the danger which I have in my mind. Section 16 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is referring, provides

611
that "the holder of a licence shall keep or cause to be kept" certain records about drivers' hours and particulars of journeys and goods carried. These are most important records which ought to be kept. Subsection (5) of Section 16 of the Act makes it an offence to fail to comply with those provisions. It is not, therefore, a defence to say that the driver failed to keep the record, contrary to instructions and in circumstances in which he could not be supervised—that is to say, when he was out on a distant journey. The driver must be guilty of an offence in not keeping the records and must be prosecuted accordingly; but as the licence-holder is also responsible for causing the necessary records to be kept, he is also guilty of an offence if the driver fails to keep them. It is true he may have been let down by a careless employee, but he is not likely to be prosecuted for an isolated offence; and surely it is up to him to discipline his employees so that they do not disobey instructions. In the last resort (if this is not too extreme a course to suggest) he might even get another driver.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, whilst appearing to let out the employer only when it is not unreasonable that he should be let out, in fact, would provide ample opportunity for collusive evasion of the law. With a compliant driver it would be relatively simple to show convincingly that the licence holder had taken "all reasonable steps," and very easy to demonstrate that the particular offence was committed without his knowledge. The driver would merely be fined (and possibly reimbursed by the employer) and the most effective sanction—the suspension or revocation of licence—could not be used. The worst offences against the statutory requirements about drivers' hours are those committed by the willing driver and the knowing employer. I suggest that it would be most unwise to weaken seriously the enforcement of the law against them—that is, against the willing driver and the knowing employer—merely in order to deal with the occasional, and not very hard, case of the careless driver and the innocent employer.
The effect of this Amendment would be to encourage owners and drivers, employers and drivers, to get together in order to break or evade the safety regulations which all branches of industry are satisfied that it is right and proper should
612
be observed. I cannot feel that it would improve the Bill to give opportunity for the deliberate evasion of these regulations. It certainly would not add to safety on the roads. I think that these provisions are very wise and that we should stick to them. Any injustice that might possibly come out of them would, I think, be infinitesimal compared with the harm that might well be done if these safety regulations could be consistently and knowingly flouted. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will on reflection see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: If ever I get involved in a serious motoring case I think I shall brief the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to defend me. He has produced what I can only describe as a magnificent argument from one point of view. To take the other point of view, how about the driver who sets out to let his employer down? The employer, it may well be, has done everything he can to see that the law is observed, but the driver possibly puts his head together with one or two of his fellow employees and takes part in collusive action against the employer. However, it is no use my pursuing the point. I really do mean, though, that if I ever get charged with a serious motoring offence I shall ask the noble Lord to undertake my defence.
LORD MANCROFT: Thank you very much.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Twelfth Schedule of London Passenger Transport Act, 1933
".The Twelfth Schedule to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which sets out the constitution of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee) shall be read and have effect as if at the end of paragraph 1 thereof (which specifies the number of members of the said Committee and by whom they shall be appointed) there were inserted the following words:
'one—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the British Transport Commission) who are holders of public carriers' licences and

613
limited carriers' licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, within the London Traffic Area.
one—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons who are holders of private carriers licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, within the London Traffic Area.
one—By the Minister, after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit, to represent the interests of persons (other than the British Transport Commission) who are the holders of licences authorising them to operate public service vehicles within the London Traffic Area.'"
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to suggest that the constitution of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee should be brought more into line with modern requirements. This Committee is, I believe, the only Committee which advises the Minister on all matters affecting traffic restrictions and regulations in regard to roads and their use. It is a very large body, the present membership being forty. It consists mainly of representatives of local authorities with only a very limited representation of road users. In fact, the mechanically propelled vehicles, horse-drawn traffic and taxicab industry all have the same representation on the Committee—namely, one representative each. Through the years this Committee has, I am informed, greatly increased its influence, and now may be said to a large extent to guide the Minister on matters of principle which tend to be applied throughout the whole country. It seems, therefore, that there should be adequate provision for representatives of goods motor vehicles operators and independent passenger vehicle operators as such.
It is true, as I have said, that provision is made for single representation of mechanically propelled vehicles, but nowadays there are so many differences in the types of vehicles operated that it is surely important that each of the large sections of road vehicle operators should be represented. I suggest that there is now an opportunity for the Government to amend the constitution of this Committee and at least to provide specifically for three additional members of the Committee, one representing A and B licence holders, one representing traders operating under C licences, and one representing passenger vehicle operators. Incidentally, this would not be the first time that the
614
constitution of the Committee has been amended, as it was specially amended in 1933 to provide, among other things, for the representation of the London Passenger Transport Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment and, in doing so, to point out that the motoring organisations are also dissatisfied with the composition and terms of reference of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. It is true that it is a very large Committee, mainly representative of local authorities, and with a very limited representation of road users. I suggest that the present membership, which I believe is about forty, is much too large. The result is that the actual work is being done by subcommittees. For this reason the administrative procedure has become cumbersome and, I would say, rather inefficient. I think that the numbers of the Committee should be reduced to about twenty-one, and if your Lordships will bear with me a moment I will suggest to you how the membership should be allocated. There should be appointed by the Minister of Transport, one; by the London County Council, three; by the City Corporation, one; by the Westminster City Council, one; by motor operators, three; by the Metropolitan, Police, one; by the City Police, one; by the British Transport Commission, two; by the Ministry of Labour, two; by mechanically propelled goods vehicles, two; by passenger carrying vehicles other than taxis, one; by taxi-cabs, one; and by private cars and motor cycles, two. If your Lordships will add those up, you will see that the total comes to twenty-one.
The London traffic area is larger than the Metropolitan Police area, and this means that outside police authorities are represented upon the Committee. I think it would help if, in reducing the size of the Committee, the Metropolitan traffic area were reduced so as to coincide with the Metropolitan Police district. At the present time, there is one representative, I think, for horse drawn traffic, and one to represent the taxi-cab industry, and I do not think it is unfair to ask that a special representative for the motor cycles and for private cars should be appointed.

615
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this opportunity of looking into the whole representation of this Committee and amend it as necessary.
LORD SILKIN: I have no particular views about what should be the composition of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but there is a fundamental point here which applies to most advisory committees. Is it to be an advisory committee consisting of people who know something about the subject they are advising upon, or is it to be a committee consisting of representatives of interested parties? Under the terms of this Amendment this would quite definitely be a committee consisting of representatives of interested parties. It says so in the strongest possible terms. I read that it is proposed that there should be a representative of "persons … who are holders of public carriers' licences," a representative of "persons who are holders of private carriers' licences" and a representative of "persons … who are the holders of licences authorising them to operate public service vehicles within the London Traffic Area," and so on. It does not strike me as being the right kind of body to give independent and objective advice.
I speak, not with any authority on this matter, but because in my time I have had to appoint committees of this kind, and I was faced with the same kind of problem. My own view would be: by all means widen the composition of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee so as to ensure that it is composed of people familiar with the subject on which they are advising, but do not tie the Committee down in this restricted way to people representing the interests of particular bodies. I would certainly have no objection to some form of words which would widen the type of person appointed to the Committee, but I think it would be a great mistake to restrict it in this way.
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that while I have sympathy with the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, I think my noble friend has made an important point. If the Government are moved to look at a committee such
616
as this, has not the time arrived for them to consider that the traffic congestion problem is not confined to London and the Home Counties? This is a national problem. Nobody could have illustrated that better than the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in his forthright comments yesterday upon the relieving of congestion by designated parking places. If the Government are moved to consider re-orienting the personnel of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee—which is a body entirely different from the National Safety First Committee, which sits to advise the Minister under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport—I suggest that we should have a body representing the whole country. I am not suggesting that we should disband the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; but where do the traffic problems in Manchester and district in Lancashire, in Yorkshire and the East Midlands, fall short of the problems in London and the Home countries?
I do not know whether these advisory committees are good. I sometimes think they are good feather-bedding between an enraged populace and the bureaucracy. They are very nice cushions for the Minister who, when he gets a problem, refers it to the Committee. That will switch it about for a year. But if the Government think that bodies like this are of use in the future, in fairness they should look at the problem from the point of view of the whole country. I would underline my noble friend's point that once the Committee is composed of people representing specific interests, where is it going to stop? I had this problem when I was at the Ministry. Once these people are put on the Committee, the Minister is inundated with requests from other reputable trade associations, all asking why they should not come in. My experience has been that one should never have on an advisory committee a mandated representative who can only "parrot" what is in his brief, what he has been sent there to say to protect the vested interests he serves and not for the good of the traffic problem as a whole. That is the danger. It is difficult to get people of sufficient knowledge independent of any interest. I would say the balance on any committee should be of people who have no self-interest or partial interest.
LORD TEYNHAM: I think the noble Lord is aware that the Committee as composed at present is representative of many different interests. It is on that basis at the moment. When speaking to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, I only suggested that certain interests which are not on the Committee should be put in.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is just emphasising my point.
LORD TEYNHAM: They are there already.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On Report stage, I might come along with another list of bodies that are not on the Committee now. In principle, the noble Lord may be right. There may be a basis for enlarging the sphere of knowledge of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but in this my sympathy is somewhat with the Government. I would ask the noble Lord: if the Government are sympathetic towards these advisory committees sufficiently to reorganise the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, what about the problems of the rest of the country?
EARL HOWE: I have listened with rapt attention to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have an idea that the noble Lord had affiliations with the Ministry of Transport in the past. I had an idea that he was responsible for what happened there. He has not produced anything new. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee have been sitting for years and have done magnificent work on the whole. They have really done their best to improve traffic. But if the noble Lord thought the Committee was so unsuitable, why did he not do something when he was at the Ministry?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I never said it was unsuitable. I never criticised it in one single sentence I said. I did say that if we are going to reorganise the membership or add to the membership of this Committee, we are up against the problem of the one-hundred-and-one organisations that are not now upon it. I had all this trouble with the National Safety First Committee, an admirable Committee, but I can tell your Lordships of half a dozen estimable
618
bodies which are not represented on it. Once we put those bodies on it, another half dozen would ask to be represented. I am prepared to be guided on these matters by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I am not saying that the bodies suggested are not admirable bodies to be represented on the Committee; but what are we going to do—are we going to enlarge these committees and make them into general meetings?
EARL HOWE: If we were producing a new committee, we should in the abstract probably all agree with the noble Lord; but here is a Committee which has been going on for years and over which he has had jurisdiction in the past. Surely his remarks go a little far. Everybody knows the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and on the whole everybody is fairly satisfied with their work. I am glad the noble Lord was so "tough" with the organisations who wanted to get on it. In a way it is absurd to enlarge the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, and it would be much better if the membership could be reduced in numbers and made a more accurate representation of road users. I do not care a bit whether a man is a mandated representative or not so long as he knows something about the problem the Committee is dealing with. So long as we can get a committee of Londoners, road users and the like, I am perfectly certain we need not worry too much about whether they are mandated or not. In the past, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has worked to great effect, and I hope it will continue to do so. I feel that its representation should be brought up to date in line with modern conditions. Therefore, I support my noble friends.
LORD HURCOMB: I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I do not in the least wish to argue against some device relative to the whole country, but how it would be possible to gather together in one room, even so large as your Lordships' House, a body which would be accepted by all the large cities and all the counties throughout the country, I do not know. But this Committee has a long history and in the past has done remarkable work. It had the opportunity from the start of bringing together the police

619
authorities from the metropolitan area and the City of London and outside, the highway authorities, the traffic experts in the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office, the great groups of users and, more particularly, London Transport.
I know that the late Mr. Frank Pitt, who was known to many of your Lordships, spent months of his time in the early days trying to get all these traffic regulations—where street crossings should be, where the London buses should stop, and that kind of thing—threshed out, with his own expert knowledge, as well as that of the other transport users and the police, the highway authorities and their surveyors, who had the problem of siting these stopping places, and, when Belisha crossings were introduced, just where they should be put. A vast mass of detailed work was done by this Committee and, I should have thought, could usefully continue to be done, at any rate in the metropolis and in Greater London, provided that the Committee has a reasonable representation of the users, as well as of all the other constituent elements.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that it is much too big; a body of forty people is too big, and it is forced to work with sub-committees. The reason for that is the necessity of appeasing or placating the sentiment of the local authorities. The metropolitan boroughs are not content to be represented by the London County Council, and they are not content to be represented by any one of them, so they are given a certain number of representatives. Then there are all the boroughs outside, and the counties in this area; and so the local representation builds up. They never found it easy to select their representatives. I remember my old friend, Sir Henry Jackson, who was a Member of another place, saying that in the last resort he used to put the names in a bowler hat and get someone to draw them out; and that superseded an elaborate statutory procedure of panels. But that is a trifle. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could consider whether, if additional interests are to be let in, some, at any rate, of the present highway authority representation, which may be less important, might be—not removed, for they are important, but perhaps reduced in number. But substantially I hope that your Lordships will not
620
seek to destroy the work of this Committee, which I think at the moment is of great value, and certainly in previous years has proved most valuable.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not want to go too wide of this Amendment by considering the broader issues of the whole country, because I think the purpose of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is quite clear. London is much bigger than any other place, and the structure of its local authorities is quite different: it requires a body of this sort to bring them together. I think that is entire justification for adopting here a procedure which may be different from that adopted for the rest of the country. That will not prevent the rest of the country from dealing with the problem, though in many cases it can be dealt with quite well between the local authorities and the police. However, the point here is that this is a statutory Committee. It was set up under the London Traffic Act, 1924. I think it is right that I should echo what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, have said as to the outstanding value of the work which this Committee has done. That work should be recognised fully in your Lordships' House.
I am sure your Lordships listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who, after all, has been in close personal touch with this Committee for a long time. I think the view of my right honourable friend is very much what the noble Lord said; that probably there should be a radical revision in the structure of this Committee. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get that in time for this Bill, because it needs a great deal of negotiation with the local authorities and other interests concerned. Therefore, I am afraid I must exclude the possibility of anything approximating to what my noble friend Lord Teynham suggested.
The question then arises whether we should now, to some extent, redress the balance in the existing Committee without going for a radical revision. I am sure we were all interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said. In these committees it is always most difficult to secure a balance between the specialist and what I may call the objectivist—the man who has the knowledge and the man who is entirely independent from the problem. But I think we must agree that

621
in traffic problems it is essential to have a good deal of real knowledge of the problem. It is no good getting men, however wise, and setting them together if they do not know what it is about. I think the sort of associations mentioned in the Amendment are representative of big national organisations, or at least the local branches of national organisations, and I do not think they would be accused of representing some purely narrow interest. They have great experience of operation and could add some value to the Committee.
I am somewhat at a loss to know what to do now. As my noble friend Lord Teynham said, the Committee at present includes only one representative for mechanically propelled vehicles. That may have been all right thirty years ago, but it is obvious that today one representative for mechanically propelled vehicles is an absurdity; and we must rectify this with some representation of the commercial interest as such. My noble friend Lord Teynham has said that, although his name is on this Amendment, he would rather like to have some additional representative. If my noble friend Lord Rothes, who moved the Amendment, agrees, I shall be happy for the Amendment to be withdrawn, and we may be able to find some arrangement between now and the Report stage on which we can all agree. In principle, we are quite happy to accept the Amendment as it stands, but if the noble Earl feels that he wants to make an addition, then I think he must withdraw the Amendment and consider the matter further. As I say, if he wishes to withdraw the Amendment now, we can consider it before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I should like to begin by saying that nothing in this Amendment, and nothing I have said, is intended to criticise or belittle the work of this Committee. I admire what the Committee has done in the past, and the object of the Amendment was to see that it had a new look in order to face modern requirements. Perhaps it would be better if I withdrew the Amendment now—I think we are all much of one mind as to what is required—so that between now and Report stage we could have consultation on the whole question of the composition of the Committee. Some new Amendment could then be moved on Report.
THE EARL OE SELKIRK: I entirely agree with the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I think it would be worth while to give a little thought to the point I made. It would meet my point if, instead of using the words "to represent the interests of," the words were "persons nominated by" these bodies. That would not be so pointed: it would not suggest that they had to sit on the Committee to represent the interests of particular bodies. I should not have the slightest objection to their being nominated, however. I hope the noble Earl will consider it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The appointment is made by the Minister.
LORD SILKIN: Nevertheless, it leaves a bad taste to say that they are to represent somebody's interest when the Committee is an advisory body.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have the noble Lord's point. I will certainly bear it in mind and see whether we can meet it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.1 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of First Schedule of Road Traffic Act, 1934
".Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 (which specifies the maximum permitted speeds of goods vehicles) shall be read and have effect as if in sub-paragraph (1) (d) thereof (which relates to heavy motor cars) in place of the maximum speed of 20 miles per hour there were substituted the maximum speed of 30 miles per hour."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment explains itself, and I am sure that every member of the Committee is acquainted with the point which is raised. Heavy goods vehicles are limited—or are supposed to be—to 20 m.p.h. If that limit were adhered to—and I hope that everybody on the Front Bench, including the Lord Chancellor is listening to this particular point—it would to that extent limit the usefulness of the heavy goods vehicle and the contribution it can make to the trade of the country. There is little that happens in our daily lives, and little that we use in our daily lives, which does not at some stage or another depend upon the

623
heavy goods vehicle for its transport. Therefore, an increase in the cost of road transport will certainly be reflected in the cost of living. To what extent the cost of living is affected, I am not sure: I have seen estimates, and I could give them if necessary.
Here we have a limit of 20 m.p.h. The Road Research Board have told us that 94 per cent. of the vehicles affected completely disregard the limit. A Government Committee have also acknowledged that 94 per cent. of the vehicles affected pay no sort of attention to this 20 m.p.h. limit—and it is fortunate from the point of view of the country that they do not, because the cost of everything might go up a little more if they did. I think we all know that the heavy goods vehicles proceed at the ordinary road speed of other vehicles, and that when they get to a point where there is a rest house or a cafe they have a bit longer there so that the scheduled speed is not exceeded. But they are, in fact, for the most part, breaking the law, and surely we ought not to be accessories after the fact. Ought we not to recognise the fact that the 20 m.p.h. limit is completely out of date and should be brought into line with modern vehicles and modern conditions? Furthermore, if all the heavy vehicles were solemnly to proceed along the roads at 20 m.p.h., just think what the congestion would be and what would happen on the roads under heavy traffic conditions. Take the A.5. Many of your Lordships know that road, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, knows it well. If heavy vehicles proceeded along the A.5 at a steady 20 m.p.h., just think what could happen on occasions, not only by day but also by night, because the A.5 is more heavily trafficked by night than it is by day.
I submit that the case is simply unanswerable, and that the real reason for the failure to bring this law up to date has never yet been publicly stated or publicly acknowledged from the Front Bench of either House, under this Government or the last Government—or, indeed, any Government. If the heavy vehicles were allowed to proceed legally at 30 m.p.h.—most of them are doing so at the moment—it would not increase the dangers. It would not reduce the margin of road safety, because they are all going at 30 m.p.h. at the present time, so that
624
conditions are not likely to get any worse. If the heavy vehicles were to keep strictly to the limit, passing conditions would be even worse than they are to-day. At the present moment the vehicles are going at 30 m.p.h., and surely, from a safety point of view, the important thing to do on the roads of this country is to reduce the amount of passing that is necessary and to keep up an even flow of traffic. That you more nearly approach if you allow the heavy vehicles to go legally at the speed they should.
There is another point; the question of fatigue of the drivers. The drivers would not find it more fatiguing to go at 30 m.p.h. In fact, it would be less fatiguing, because there would not be so much gear-changing to be done. The other day the Minister of Transport brought out proposals for an expanded road programme. One of his proposals, the most important one—and the one, I dare say, which people who are interested in traffic would like to see carried out before anything else—is the modernisation of the main road to the north, past the outskirts of Birmingham and, eventually, to Lancashire. That is a magnificent proposal. But when are we going to see it? Does anybody suppose that, if that proposal comes into being, heavy motor vehicles will go along that road at 20 m.p.h.? Is it not really silly to suggest it? The ordinary speed of the heavy motor vehicle on the road to-day is about 30 m.p.h., and surely we ought to take advantage of it.
Let me refer to a further anomaly. Although heavy goods vehicles are to-day limited to 20 m.p.h., a public service vehicle, with a load of passengers, may go at 30 m.p.h. It does not bear any relation to the needs of modern traffic or the needs of the public, and I submit that it is all humbug for anybody to get up on behalf of this or any other Government and say that the limit should be 20 m.p.h. for reasons of safety or anything to do with road conditions. We all know what the real answer is. Why not say so? Why not face the facts? I am perfectly certain that, if they can do that, this Government will gain a lot in public opinion. If they do not, and if they will not agree to this Amendment, they will be making themselves accessories after the fact, and conniving at a wholesale breaking of the law—and during this

625
debate we have heard a great deal about breaking the law. I hope that the Government will be able to give some assurance on this most important matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MANCROFT: My noble friend Lord Howe is perfectly correct when he says that this is a familiar argument. We have, indeed, heard this over a long time and we have heard the points he has put forward. Many of us are familiar with them, and have some considerable sympathy with some of the arguments he has advanced. Before I come to deal with the main issue—and I will deal with it very shortly—let me just remind the Committee of this fact. If this extension from 20 m.p.h. to.30 m.p.h. were to be approved, it could perfectly well be done by a change made by the Minister in the regulations. This Amendment is quite unnecessary, because Section 10 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, enables the Minister by regulation to make variations of the sort the noble Earl requires, subject to approval by Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
Leaving that aside for the moment, let us consider the general fundamental point. This limit was originally imposed primarily for safety reasons. Experience and the improved design and construction of modern goods vehicles have to some extent, however, weakened the case for its retention. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, feels that the objections which formerly existed on safety grounds are now not so strong. But changes in matters of this kind, which affect not only safety but also the general conditions under which the work is carried out, should not be made until the interests concerned—in this case the employers and the trade unions—have had full opportunity of reaching some measure of agreement. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is not prepared to take action in this Bill which might well prejudicially affect any discussions between the employers and the trade unions. My noble friend, Lord Howe, was kind enough a moment or two ago to offer me a general retainer, and I should like, if I may, to offer him my first piece of advice in that capacity as learned—and unpaid—counsel. I will
626
ask him to be good enough to consider fully the implications of what I have said, and in the light of that consideration I hope he will press neither his argument nor the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have waited until the noble Lord spoke before offering any observations from this side. The noble Lord rightly says that this is an age-old and very contentious matter, but I cannot think it is in the national interests for it to go on in this wholly unsatisfactory state year in and year out. It is something for which Parliament and the Government have a responsibility. I am fully aware of what is in the noble Lord's mind. I would not say a word that would make the matter more difficult. But somebody has to take a lead, and in matters of this kind I suggest, with great respect, that Her Majesty's Government are the only possible people to do so.
If I may be bold enough, without impertinence, I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that here we have a section of the law of this land which is brought into flagrant disrepute. I do not think it is right it should be. Either the law should be enforced or it should not. I pray in aid in saying this a dictum of a most respected Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Justice du Parcq, who said in the context of another case where the law was not being observed—and it happened to be a road matter as well—that if there are absurdities in the law it is only by enforcement of the law that those absurdities can be brought to the light of day, and it is then Parliament's duty to take action to remove them. I expect the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is as well aware of what the late noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, said as I am. I think it is wrong—if I may use this expression—that successive Governments should "pass the buck." That is a vulgarism, but it is the only expression I can think of on the spur of the moment.
I believe there is a solution to this problem, but it wants somebody to give the lead. There is a solution, and a solution which I think the noble Lord or his advisers know. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, had this problem from the employers' point of view when he

627
was the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. I hope I am not saying anything which he would not care to say himself, but I know he was anxious and willing to play his part, as one of the largest employers of labour. I do not want a discussion in this House which will make anything more difficult, but I think somebody must take the lead. We cannot go on as at present. It is a negation of Parliamentary responsibility, and that is bad. I suggest that the Government should really act in this matter, not in any arbitrary way; that would be ridiculous. If the police were to enforce the law, that would soon bring the matter to a head. But the Government cannot go on dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying. It is not in the national interests that they should. It is not an intractable problem. A few diplomatic advances, and I believe the two sides can be brought together. There is a method of negotiation in this particular field that will smooth out all difficulties, and I would seriously ask the Government, before we have another debate on the question, to try and explore that avenue and see whether we cannot bring an end to such a state of affairs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made that contribution to the debate, because he knows very well that, in addition to being a difficult subject, this is a delicate one and one that might be approached in a method not entirely devoid of Party differences. That is why I am so grateful to the noble Lord for coming into this debate in the way he has. Speaking from those Benches, he has eliminated an aspect of the matter which might otherwise, if I may put it colloquially, have "reared its ugly head." Fortunately, here we are in a position where it is not asking the House to lose a once-and-for-all opportunity of putting the matter right. If it were so, I should sympathise greatly with the noble Lords who have spoken, who would then feel that if we did not act now we should be allowing this anomaly to continue. I would remind the House once again that under Section 10 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Minister is enabled by regulation to make variations in the provisions of the schedule, but subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. So that not
628
only has the Minister power, but the House has control.
I entirely sympathise with the views that have been advanced by Lord Howe and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with regard to the law and to its being in a position where its continual disregard brings it into disrepute. So long as I am head of the legal profession of this country I will certainly do everything within my power to see that such a state of affairs shall not obtain if I can get rid of it. Therefore, on the matter of principle there is no difference between myself and the noble Lords who have addressed their minds to this problem. On the question of timing, however, I ask noble Lords to consider this question again. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, knows very well how in the past it has appeared at some happy moment as if we were very near to a solution of this matter, and then some aspect has overtaken us and the negotiations have not succeeded. I give this undertaking to the House: that I will take this matter up most seriously, not only with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport but also with my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour so soon as he returns to harness, which I hope will be in the near future. We will try to make another effort to solve a problem which has hitherto been intractable.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—and I think the content of my suggestion indicates that I am putting this matter forward as seriously as I can—that he should bear in mind that executive action has to be taken. I am sure he will not forget, during the next few months and considerably before the beginning of the Summer Recess, to bring this matter to my attention, either personally or otherwise, and thereafter, if I do not satisfy him, bring it to the attention of your Lordships' House. I want to make another effort to deal with this matter. It would be unfortunate if, by legislating where there is already action open to us, we were to seem to take a hurried and what might appear arbitrary course. I hope that, on my assurance to your Lordships, not only of action but also of my real appreciation of the seriousness of the position when the law is brought into disrepute, my noble friend will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.
4.22 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I support the Amendment mainly on one ground. This is a matter which I have frequently discussed with magistrates, and I find that they are all in favour of altering the law in the way the Amendment proposes. Practically unanimously they say the same thing to me: that it is a most invidious task to administer a law which they believe to be completely out of date and which they feel should be amended in this direction. They tell me that if they have to impose a penalty upon a man for exceeding the limit of 20 m.p.h., their sympathies are almost always with the man. I am quite sure that it will be found that the great majority of magistrates throughout the country hold the same views.
I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said about choosing the right time to handle the matter as between employers and the trade unions. I entirely agree that that is a matter of delicacy which must be handled carefully, but I also think there is a limit to the time the Minister responsible can continue to plead, in a matter which, as we have heard to-day, has his sympathies, that he does not like the law as it stands. There should be a limit to the time in which a Minister, out of deference to the opinions of other parties, is prepared to go on upholding a law of which he disapproves. On that account, I think that those of us who support this Amendment have a right to ask that there shall be some limit to the time taken up by such consultations. If, after employing great tact and giving a great deal of time to the matter, the Minister finds he cannot bring the parties together, then he should act. He should not always plead a bottleneck to prevent him from doing something which he wants to do. I feel that the time is reached when a Minister must act to remove a bottleneck although he has exhausted his powers of persuasion in trying to remove it. He cannot say, "This bottleneck must remain: I cannot carry out what I want to." I should like to impress very strongly indeed upon the Minister in charge of the Bill that there must be some limit to the period during which consultations go on. The matter must be brought to a head.
LORD GIFFORD: I am sure we have been deeply impressed by the serious
630
words of the noble and learned Viscount and, in view of what he, has said, I should not think of supporting the Amendment. But may I put one point of view which may possibly help him in his deliberations? If, by order, this increase in the speed limit is brought in, that does not force people to go at that limit; they can still continue, while negotiations are proceeding, using their schedules, or whatever it may be, under the old 20 m.p.h. limit. It merely lifts the ban and makes it legal to go at 30 m.p.h. but does not put force or pressure in any way on the drivers of vehicles to do so. Could not that point be brought out?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: So far, nothing has been said on this subject from the point of view of the private motorist. I think it is as well that somebody should voice what I believe is the view of a large number of us who use small motor cars on the roads. We are not keen that commercial traffic, heavy goods vehicles, should be allowed to go at much greater speeds. I admit the argument that, from the economic point of view, the speeding up of goods traffic would obviously be an advantage. But from the point of view of the road user, are we really going to find less necessity for passing goods vehicles if their speed limit is increased? If goods vehicles travel at 30 m.p.h. and stick to the 30 m.p.h. limit, the private car will still want to pass them, so that there will be no difference in the amount of passing on these narrow roads. If these vehicles do not stick to the 30 m.p.h. limit, the law will again be brought into contempt, just as it is at the moment.
The other argument, that advances in modern engineering make restricted speeds unnecessary, may apply to modern vehicles; but how many of the goods vehicles on the roads are of some considerable age? We could not have a differential speed limit, whereby vehicles over ten years old must stick to the 20 m.p.h. limit. So it seems to me that if we increase this speed limit we shall be running the risk that a number of old vehicles will travel at a speed at which their brakes are not safe. For those reasons at least, I should deplore the raising of the speed limit while the great bulk of our traffic has to travel along old and narrow roads.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl, Lord Howe, takes

631
what action he likes (for it is his Amendment), I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his constructive and sympathetic approach to this problem. If I can be of any help to him—I was once the chairman of a National Joint Industrial Council very near to the industry with which this problem is connected—my services are at his disposal.
EARL HOWE: I find it difficult adequately to thank or express my appreciation to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the statement which he has made to us. I am sure that every noble Lord here must be as grateful to him as I am I naturally withdraw the Amendment, and I can only assure him, without the slightest hesitation, that I wish him all the best of good luck in his negotiations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment which the Committee inserted into the Bill earlier in the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, at end insert ("'dual purpose vehicle' means a motor car which—

(a) does not exceed two tons in weight unladen;

(b) has to the rear of the driver's seat roofed accommodation fitted with side windows or is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows;

(c) is constructed so as to be adaptable both for the carriage of passengers and for the carriage of goods;

(d) has, 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 and facing to the front or rear of the vehicle such seating being fitted with back rests (either folding or fixed) attached permanently to the vehicle;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree that this is a consequential Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I beg formally to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("road") to end of line 24 and insert ("has the meaning
632
assigned to it by section one hundred and twenty-one of the Act of 1930;").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will explain to me the purpose of this Amendment, because I am not clear what he is getting at. What I can tell the Committee is that the word "road" in this Bill means "any highway and any other road to which the public has access," and the word "road." as defined in the 1930 Act, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which the road passes. I can see no point in including in this Bill the structure of bridges. It includes the surface of the road passing over the bridges, but it does not include the structure of the bridges. If the noble Earl has any reasons to advance as to why we should include it, I shall be glad to consider the matter. If he has not, I shall be grateful if he will withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I will tell my noble friend what happened to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short title, commencement, repeals, savings and extent]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, which is purely formal, is designed to insert the words set out on the Marshalled List. Those of your Lordships who can scarcely remember the day when we were not discussing road traffic will hardly be surprised to see this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 41, at end insert ("and this Act and the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1947 may be cited together as the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1955.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Conditions affecting classification of vehicles]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 12, to omit all words from and including "frequently" down

633
to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
"is travelling for any purpose other than that for which the journey has been arranged."
The noble Lord said: We now come to a rather important Amendment, and I think it will be advisable if I refresh the memories of the Committee about a debate that we had in your Lordships' House on the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This Amendment deals with the question of the private party contract carriage, where the vehicle can be hired on contract to do a specific private hire job, but separate fares are charged.
It was the will of Parliament in 1934 that there should be a type of public service vehicle which did not require a road service licence, was not a stage carriage or an express carriage, but could be hired by bodies, such as works canteens, religious organisations, and that class of the community, to go to specific places. These vehicles have to take all their passengers there, and if the passengers hire the coach under contract and pay a lump sum, that is an end of the matter—there need be no road service licence or application to the licensing authority. But there came about a type of contract carriage which required separate fares to be paid—for instance, a contract carriage to take village institute parties to the local theatre, or village children and mothers' meetings to local theatres and pantomimes. In such cases a separate fare was charged, and not an inclusive figure.
All went well for a time, because the term in the original Act was "special occasion": the whole thing had to be a special occasion. It so happened, however—I will not say through a draftsman's error, because there are various opinions as to whether the decision of the Divisional Court was right—that the words "special occasion" appeared in two subsections of the same section; and upon a test case being raised the Divisional Court decided that the party had to be a "special occasion" and that the function to which the party was going had also to be a special occasion. To give an illustration one could not take the village children to the local pantomime or to the pantomime in a town five miles away, because, although it was a special occasion to the children, as the
634
pantomime might run for sixty nights, the occasion itself was not a special occasion. That was the decision. And it really stopped all this class of business.
I have brought up this question on many occasions, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, promised, when we debated it last in your Lordships' House, about last November, that if possible, and as soon as was possible, he would see that legislation was introduced to remove this anomaly. I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl for doing that. The provisions of this Bill sweep away the words "special occasion"; they open the door as widely as anybody could wish it to be opened. But the Government have fallen into precisely the same error as did their predecessors who put in the words "special occasion," because they have now put in the word "frequently." If the term "special occasion" constituted a lawyers' paradise, as it so turned out, I do not know what will happen in regard to the word "frequently." It will really be a lawyer's paradise. Because what is meant by "frequently"?
I would ask the Committee to look at paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule, which begins:
"In the case of a journey to a particular destination the passenger must not include any person who frequently"—
I will stop there a moment. There we narrow it down. It is not a vehicle or a contract carriage that is prohibited from going frequently—they can go frequently; but it is a person who must not go frequently. The paragraph goes on:
"or as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to or to the vicinity of that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made."
I seek to eliminate all words from "who" to the end and to substitute
"is travelling for any purpose than that for which the journey has been arranged".
There is no difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and myself. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to prevent a contract carriage from being used by people as a stage carriage. If a contract carriage is going from Little Puddlecombe to a town ten miles away, to take a party to, say, a theatre, stage passengers should not be carried. The individual fare might be

635
lower, so an individual who had no intention of going to the theatre but wanted to go to the town might use the contract bus instead of the ordinary stage carriage.
It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to rule out the person who frequently goes on the journey as a matter of routine or in the ordinary course of his business. Why not short-circuit all this by saying that the vehicle must not carry any passenger who is going for any purpose other than that for which the journey is arranged? If the journey is arranged to take a party to a theatre, a concert, a football match or something of that kind, the passengers must all be going to the entertainment, and must, in fact, go to the entertainment. That appears to be common sense, because otherwise this requirement can never be enforced. Are you to have inspectors to see whether a passenger "frequently goes" on a journey? And why should he not go frequently if he is going for the purpose for which the journey is arranged? Again, paragraph 12 excludes a passenger who
"as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made."
I could mention to your Lordships half a dozen cases where the route traversed might be exactly the same as that traversed by a man in his ordinary job, although he is not going to the ordinary job but for the express purpose for which that contract party has been arranged. I suggest that my Amendment is a better way of expressing what Her Majesty's Government desire to do, and I feel that I need say no more. I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 33, leave out from the word ("who") to end of line 36 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his usual courtesy, earlier to-day gave me notice of the point that was troubling him in this matter, and the only reason why I am taking up the time of your Lordships' House is that I did try, consequent upon that, to make such legal researches as I could into this point in order to put them before noble Lords. The provision in the Schedule which the noble Lord seeks to amend is not a new
636
statutory effort. It is taken verbatim from Section 25, subsection (1), paragraph (e) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934:
"In the case of a journey to a particular destination the passengers must not include any person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made;"
I thought it might help the noble Lord if I not only gave him the ancestry of the provision but also inquired whether it had occasioned much legal discussion in the intervening years. So far as I can gather, the term "frequently" has only once come up in the courts. That was in the case which is very well known to the noble Lord, because he has more than once referred to it, Sidery v. Evans and Peters. It was the object of the exercise to take people to the home matches of the Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hewart, in considering the matter, used these words:
"Here it is apparent, on the facts as found, that the passengers carried did include persons who frequently travelled, at or about the time of day at which the journey was made, to the destination from a place from which the journey was made. Indeed, it is manifest that there was a systematic travelling by persons who were the same individuals, who travelled on various occasions when the opportunity was offered of witnessing a match in which the particular football team were expected to take part. The justices have stated that, in their opinion, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, section 25 (1) were complied with, and they have purported to find as a fact in the course of their expression of opinion: 'that, having regard to the lapse of time between the dates upon which the said vehicles were used, the passengers did not include any person who frequently or as a matter of routine travelled on the vehicles.' With all due respect to these justices, that conclusion seems to me to be at variance with the facts as found. The recurrence of the occasion upon which the same passengers made the same journey was a recurrence governed by the number of occasions on which these matches were played, and, in fact, the occasions recurred whenever the matches recurred. There was as high a degree of repetition or frequency as the circumstances could possibly permit."
This, the only judicial expression I could find on the matter, shows that what is connoted by the Act over the twenty-one years that it has been in operation is a high degree of frequency and regularity. I thought the noble Lord might find it helpful if I informed him of that history, because it is difficult to know whether or not it has attracted difficulty.

637
The second point I want to put to the noble Lord is that without these words there would be great difficulty in making the provision effective. The noble Lord has suggested an alternative which I feel requires some consideration. I have naturally looked at his suggestion sympathetically, as I look at every potential improvement to the Statute Book; but it would strike at the person who has joined the party for some purpose other than the party. There are two difficulties (I know that the noble Lord has them in mind) as to the present provision of the Act. The first is: can you enforce it? The second is: when you have enforced it, have you really helped your general purpose? The difficulty of enforcing it is that, of course, a person who may have some other intention in mind may still go to the point near the football match or the theatre, or whatever it is that the party is arranged for; and, secondly, assuming that someone does join for a different purpose on one occasion, is that really a grave mischief? As the noble Lord is well aware, the person who uses a special outing as a public vehicle service is really making the special outing vehicle do the work that a service ought to do.
In the last hour since the noble Lord spoke to me I have considered his point. I do not think his Amendment would quite do what is wanted, and I do not think that the original is as bad as the noble Lord thought. I hope that I may have slightly changed his view by giving him the history of the wording of the original section. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I suggest that he has another think about this. I will certainly do the same, and if anything better can be suggested to meet the mischief we both want to prevent, I shall be pleased to consider it at the next stage of the Bill. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but I think it only right, when a point is as important as this point is, and especially as the noble Lord has taken so much trouble, to find out the facts and to do what one can to help him.
4.53 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. There is no need for him to apologise, for he certainly has not wasted any time—indeed, I think we have saved
638
hours and hours, even days of time in the future, and great inconvenience to thousands of people in the rural areas. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to take this fact into consideration. There was also in the Statute the requirement that it had to be "a special occasion." Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which was amended by Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, says this:
"Provided that a motor vehicle adapted to carry less than eight passengers shall not be deemed to be a stage carriage or an express carriage by reason only that on occasions of race meetings, public gatherings and other like special occasions it is used to carry passengers at separate fares."
Later, the section says:
"Provided that a vehicle used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party shall not be deemed to be a vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward at separate fares by reason only that the members of the party have made separate payments which cover their conveyance by that vehicle on that occasion."
Now as to "special occasion." The legal battles were fought upon the interpretation of "special occasion." Those words have now been taken out, and legal battles in the future will be fought upon the word "frequently." With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, he has given the former Lord Chief Justice's dictum upon "frequently," but he has not cleared up the problem of what is "frequently." Who is going to decide what is "frequently"? I know that it would be possible to evade the law under my Amendment, I cannot think of an Amendment which would not permit evasion of the law to some degree. But I would say that my Amendment is better than the Government's wording.
Take the case of a football match—the noble and learned Viscount has used that as an illustration. Let us take the journey, say, from the village of Hartley Wintney to Reading. The bus goes to every home match that the Reading football club plays. Every other week, a contract carriage goes there, and separate fares are charged. I book a seat, let us say. Have I got to state whether I have been "frequently" before? Are they going to keep a register of the persons who travel? If they do, and if I am a very keen football fan, then the first time I go my name is "Brown" and the second time my name is "Jones." I can go on and on. How are you going to

639
stop that sort of thing? But I do not believe that the danger of the abuse is very great. If the Government find that the contract carriage business is swelling and swelling by reason of this provision, then it will be necessary to bring in another method.
The Thesiger Report suggested that contract carriages should be licensed. The Government did not agree with that proposal. I have no quarrel with it. But once having said that you can have contract carriages, I do not know how you are going to interpret the word "frequently." Until we have some case law, what are contract carriage operators to do? When this Bill becomes the law, who is going to say whether a journey is made "frequently" or not? And why should the journey not be made frequently, if it is for a specific purpose. I have mentioned the abuse that could occur if a man says he is going to a football match when, in fact, he is not. That abuse is just as possible under the wording of the Bill as under my Amendment. So I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will have another look at this point.
I am only trying to prevent litigation. If the noble and learned Viscount will consult his colleagues I think he will find they will confirm that the "special occasion" litigation completely put an end to private party work. It cost the provincial theatres thousands and thousands of pounds. The run of pantomimes had to be cut short by weeks. Unemployment was caused in the theatrical profession, because in the provinces they relied upon this private party work. I am even told that Covent Garden to-day has to rely mainly upon private party work, from musical and dramatic societies, to bring the bulk of their patrons to that theatre. This is a real danger. When the Divisional Court ruled that a show of that kind was not a "special occasion," that ended private party work. Are we now to go into all this trouble with regard to the legal interpretation of "frequently"? I will not press this Amendment this afternoon, because the noble and learned Viscount has been so courteous and, unfortunately, so persuasive. I will therefore withdraw my Amendment. If he will give consideration to this matter—and I know he will—I am sure he will do it
640
objectively. Perhaps we can have discussions about this matter after he has made some researches between now and the next stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will most certainly give this matter consideration, as the noble Lord has asked me to do.
LORD WINSTER: May I say one word before the Amendment is withdrawn? I should like to advance one reason why I think the wording of my noble friend's Amendment is much preferable to the words he seeks to remove. I frequently make the journey from my home to Westminster in order to attend to my duties in your Lordships' House. If the local anglers' club, of which I am a vice-president, arranged a coach outing to Westminster to see the Houses of Parliament, possibly they might invite me to accompany them. If I did so, then under the words in the Second Schedule I should be committing an offence. Under the words proposed by my noble friend I should not be guilty. That is the only way I can read the effect of paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule. I should be committing an offence because I should be making with the anglers' club in their coach a journey which I frequently make for the purpose of attending your Lordships' House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 13, to add to subparagraph (a):
"at or in a place frequented by persons who are members of the organisation or body upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged or."
The noble Lord said: May I have your Lordships' permission to deal with Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 together? Another ridiculous aspect of the legal interpretation of past legislation is to be found in the Government's attempt in the 1934 Act to overcome the difficulty of special occasions and the difficulty of how these special trips should be advertised. They thought they had got rid of the special occasion and they had tightened up the provision about advertising so as to make certain that it was not of a public character. Again the Divisional Court upset the Ministerial apple-cart by tightening up advertising so much that if the village Labour Club or any

641
other club put a notice in a shop saying that they were going to Brighton for the day, that was advertising. The Government have again opened the door for special occasions, and are trying to close it again with restriction on advertising. I suggest to them that they have done it in rather a peculiar way.
Part V, paragraph 13 (a) of the Schedule refers to
"a notice displayed or announcement made at or in any place of worship in the manner in which notices or announcements for the information of persons attending that place of worship are normally displayed or made,"
Previously, it is laid down that
"the journey must be made without previous advertisement to the public of the arrangements thereof."
It is a laudable desire to help people who go to places of worship. But are we going to deny to all the non-sectarian bodies the right to display notices of their outings? Are we going to become denominational? Are the Jews, who have not a synagogue in every village as the Anglicans have, a parish church, to be denied the opportunity of knowing that somebody connected with an organisation in which they are interested is going to have a private party somewhere? Let me take one of the best movements in this country, which all noble Lords will applaud—the Women's Institutes. They are non-sectarian and will not hold a meeting in a denominational hall if they can possibly help it. Why cannot they be brought into this? I cannot understand it at all. A notice saying that the church choir are going to Brighton for the day can be pinned up in the vestry and the vicar can stand up in the pulpit and announce it, but one cannot put up a notice in a "pub" to say that the local football team or the local branch of the British Legion are going to Brighton for the day. Is this not really carrying things a little too far? What about works canteens? Surely one can put up a notice in a works canteen to say that the works' social club is having an outing, that the coaches are going to start at such-and-such a time and that tickets are available from the secretary. Surely we are not going to say that the only place where a notice can be put up is in a church. That is most peculiar. I really do not know why that provision has been included in the Bill. Perhaps originally, years and years ago, the idea of coach trips started with church outings; but we have moved some way since then.
642
What I want to do by this Amendment is to add to the end of paragraph (a)
"at or in a place frequented by persons who are members of the organisation or body upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged or"
Paragraph (b) goes on to refer to
"a notice displayed in any periodical published for the information of persons who attend a particular place of worship or a place of worship in a particular place, and circulating wholly or mainly among persons who attend or might reasonably be expected to attend there."
In other words, a notice can be put in the parish magazine, but a notice cannot be put in the local bulletin of the Women's Institute or the house journal of a works' social club. Why this strict religious line, I fail to understand. So I have put down another Amendment, which reads:
"(c) a notice displayed in any periodical published for the information of, and circulated wholly or mainly among persons who are, members of the organisation or body upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged."
I hope the Government will accept these two Amendments, to conform with the wishes of everybody who wants to see this regulated in a proper manner but does not want to see the denominational line drawn by places of worship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 45, after second ("or") insert ("at or in a place frequented by persons who are members of the organisation or body upon whose behalf the journey is being arranged or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I should like to support this Amendment and I shall be extremely interested to see on what grounds the Government can possibly resist it. I have mentioned my local angling club. With the exception of the traditional untruths of people who follow their recreation, they are a very respectable body of men, most of whom, as I happen to know, are churchgoers. But they regularly hire coaches in order to go to Seaford or Isfield, or somewhere where there is water, and they can fish. They have a notice board in the village where they put up the notice of this outing and where the meet is going to be. Under the provisions of this Schedule, they are committing an offence by putting up this notice on their notice board, as they have done for many years now. Why on earth

643
should they be forbidden to put up a notice about their quite innocent angling expedition, when those concerned with a church outing may benefit from a similar notice being put in their church or chapel? I will listen to what is said, of course, but at the moment I cannot see rhyme or reason in the provisions laid down in the Schedule, and I shall be most interested to hear if the Government feel able to resist the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is in general agreement with what we intend here—that is to say, that we do not want contract carriage to be very wide—and that he thinks it goes as wide as can be reasonably expected. I am also glad that he is ready to recognise that the backbone of carriage must be the stage carriage, the road service vehicle licensed in the ordinary way. However, I must say that I think the noble Lord has seriously misinterpreted this clause. What we have said is this. We have said that there must be no previous advertisement to the public. That means to say that anything in a social club canteen, which is not open to the public, is not public advertisement. Lord Winster's angling club is not public, because it is open only to the members; therefore, there is no need for anxiety in that matter; the anglers can do exactly as they always have done.
We have made this provision fairly rigid in excluding all public advertisement, but there is one place which, by its nature, is always public, and that is a place of worship. That is why we have singled that out, not on any denominational grounds. Any church is open; anyone can walk into it—in that sense, it is a public place. If we left the law as it stands now, any statement made to the parishioners from the pulpit would be advertisement to the public, in the sense in which it is used in paragraph 9 of Part IV. That is the only reason why we have put in that provision. And as an extension of that, we have deliberately included the parish magazine. But it should be noted that it must be a magazine which circulates only in a certain area, to people who worship in a given place. That means that such publications as the Church Times or the Catholic Herald, or anything which extended over a further area, would be excluded. For
644
that reason, I think the wording in the Bill is quite satisfactory.
On the other hand, I feel that the Amendment goes a very long way indeed. The noble Lord suggests allowing advertisements in any place "frequented by persons who are members of an organisation or body"—which I suppose means that anything like a dance hall, a darts' club or a local public-house would be included. We have no intention of extending it as wide as that, because we think it would be wrong to do so. I feel that the anxiety of the noble Lord is quite unreal, and that the Bill as printed really meets what he has in mind.
LORD ASHTON OF HYDE: What would be the situation as regards the village notice board? In our village we have one which is used entirely for the purposes of putting out notices of this sort. Would that be illegal?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should say that it would probably not fall within the terms of contract carriage. As a matter of fact, I do not think it does now, so there is nothing new about it. It must necessarily depend on what is advertisement to the public. I really should not like to carry it further than that. It is just a matter of fact.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, because he has answered me 75 per cent. But the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, has made the point. I am most anxious, because in the rural areas I suppose that the Women's Institute is one of the finest possible movements. Here we have a Bill which says that if they put a little notice on the village notice board, or in the village post office, they are committing an illegal act. May I revert for a moment to my original Amendment and put this point to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? If he would accept my Amendment that no one could travel with that coach, with that party, for any purpose other than that for which the party was being arranged, the organisers could advertise the outing in the News of the World, and it would not matter in the least. No matter who applied, you could take in that party only those for whom the party was arranged.
Perhaps the noble Earl can think of a way of tightening up my original Amendment, because I am at one with him in not

645
wanting to see the contract carriage used to undermine the stage carriage. That is why I should have preferred it if the Government had accepted the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee, that these contract carriages should be the subject of licence through the licensing authority, because that would rule out the giving of any licence for a contract carriage where there were reasonable stage carriage facilities. I hope the noble Earl will look at this matter again, because I should not like it to go out that the Government are trying to be niggardly about this and to rule out the very people I want to encourage. I do not want the people encouraged to go from town to town where there is a good stage carriage. I want this facility to be available to the villages in the rural areas where there is no stage carriage service. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will rule out competition with stage carriage and, most of all, illegal competition. If he can give me an assurance that he will look at this point again in the light of those observations, and possibly reframe my first Amendment to say that the party must not contain anybody other than members of the organisation, then the advertisement aspect does not matter. If the noble Earl will give me that assurance—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Certainly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I will withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move the next.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 2 to insert:
"3. In subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1930 there shall be inserted at the end of the proviso the following paragraph:
'(c) the provisions of this Part of this Act and the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to insurance against third-party risks shall not apply to pedestrian controlled mechanically propelled grass cutters and the provisions of any other Act or of any order, statutory instrument or regulation relating to excise duties thereon, licensing, registration and compulsory third-party insurance thereof and to driving licences and driving tests in connection therewith shall no longer apply except that it shall be an offence for any person under sixteen years of age to drive
646
or control on a road, and for any person to cause or permit a person under sixteen years of age to drive or control on a road any pedestrian controlled mechanically propelled grass cutter.'"
The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord who has looked at this Amendment does not think I have put it down as an amusing interlude. It is one of those amusing anomalies which arise in an Act of this description, and I will describe it to your Lordships shortly. This is what I want to overcome. If any of your Lordships or anyone else is a proud possessor of a house which has a grass verge outside which does not belong to you but to the local authority, and in the interests of rural amenity you wish to cut the grass to keep it neat and tidy, and you take your little fourteen-inch or twelve-inch motor mower out of your front gate and try to cut the grass, then this is what you have to do. First, you must have an excise licence, and that is going to cost you £5. Then you must have a driving licence; and because you must have a driving licence you must have a third party insurance, and must undergo a driving test—on what, I do not know. I have searched to find out, and I suppose it is on a motor car. Then you must have an L-plate until you have passed the test. Where you hang the L-plate on the motor mower I do not know.
That is my interpretation of the law as it stands to-day. I have sought in this Amendment to remove those things from the scope of the Road Traffic Act. I have not had any success yet—we are getting to the end of this Bill—and I do not think I am going to be told that this is a perfect piece of Parliamentary draftsmanship. In any case, if the noble Lord will admit the principle and that I am right in what I have described, and he can think of something better, I will accept it. But that is the law as it stands to-day, and I think it should be cleared up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The extraordinary thing about the noble Lord's explanation of the law on this matter is that it happens to be approximately correct. I think we shall have to do something to meet him on this point. I should like to congratulate him on

647
having once again put his finger on the sort of anomaly which nobody else could possibly have dreamt of. It is obviously ridiculous that the motor mower should be subject to the same restrictions and inhibitions as his Rolls Royce motor car. The trouble is that there are other kinds of vehicle today to which this would equally apply—rollers and all sorts of Emmett-like appliances which might come under the same category—and I think it would be incongruous if we did not deal with all of them at once. I should, therefore, like to meet the noble Lord's point.
I hope he will not mind my saying that he goes a little too far in one respect. He has made a clean sweep here of all the existing legal requirements, including reckless and careless driving. I wonder whether that would not be going a little far in one respect. I am not thinking only of motor mowers so much as similar agricultural implements which have quite nasty knives and things attached which, if stupidly handled on the highway, might be a serious danger to children playing in the neighbourhood. I should not like to go so far as that. If the noble Lord does not believe that it is likely to happen, I would refer him to H. E. Bate-man's "Motor mower that run amok," and he will see what can happen. I believe it might be necessary to waive the driving test and licence in this respect, and also registration, third party insurance, excise duty, and so on, provided the machine is for grass cutting only and its use is limited to a very small mileage on the road in a week. On those grounds, I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, and I will see whether we can produce an Amendment doing away with the many anomalies but retaining necessary provisions such as those relating to dangerous driving. I will look at the question of registration, insurance and so on, and also the problems raised by analogous vehicles. If that is agreeable to the noble Lord, I will try and find something which will meet his approval.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I felt certain that my overwhelming logic would appeal to him. There is one thing he has omitted to notice, and that is that my Amendment confines itself to pedestrian-controlled, mechanically propelled grass cutters. It has nothing to do with rollers
648
or anything like that. I certainly do not want it to embrace huge juggernauts tearing across the road. I want it to cover the real cases I have cited. With my thanks to the noble Lord, and with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment and wait with pleasure to see what the noble Lord suggests on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved to insert after paragraph 4:
"6. In section twenty-one of the Act of 1930 (which deals with restrictions on prosecutions) there shall be inserted after the word 'driving' where it appears for the second time the words 'or for an offence under sections forty-nine and fifty of this Act'."
The noble Lord said: I want to see that any person who has the misfortune to be prosecuted under Sections 49 and 50 of the 1930 Act has the same safeguards as he has at the present time if he is prosecuted under Sections 10, 11 and 12. Section 21 of the 1930 Act provides that a person may not be prosecuted for reckless driving, driving carelessly or exceeding the speed limit unless he is warned at the time that the question of prosecution will be considered, or served with a summons or notice of intended prosecution within fourteen days of the alleged offence. Now, so far as I know, this provision has worked very well for the last twenty-five years. There may be one or two isolated cases where the police say it has been a handicap to them, but I have not heard of any. I think it is a necessary safeguard for a defendant, because without it three or four months may elapse before he is made aware of the allegations against him.
Section 49 of the Act deals with crossing, unwittingly, a traffic light or a policeman's signal. Section 50, which is more widely drawn, deals with the question of leaving a motor car where it may cause a dangerous obstruction. I say that it is just as reasonable to warn a man that he may be prosecuted for unwittingly passing a policeman's hand, or for having left his car where it may cause dangerous obstruction, because, after all, it is quite possible that he left it at a time when there was no danger whatsoever. He may come back a little later and it may be causing a danger because the circumstances may have altered. It is not an

649
uncommon thing for a man to be prosecuted some four or five months after, when he cannot remember the exact circumstances, and I think that is most unfair to him. I suggest that this is a very reasonable Amendment, and lines up Sections 49 and 50 with the previous sections to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that my noble friend, Lord Waleran, has made out a good case in this respect, and without further ado I will say that we will be prepared to concede, in principle, the point he has made. I would add only this, which I think strengthens his hand: as in this Bill we are increasing the penalties for a number of offences, it seems only reasonable that we should give the motorist further protection against the possibility of being prosecuted after he has forgotten the circumstances. If the noble Lord will allow me to suggest that he should withdraw the Amendment, so that we can tidy up the drafting, I can give him that assurance.
LORD WALERAN: I thank my noble friend very much; and, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 8 to insert:
"9. In section sixteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which relates to the restriction on carriage of road passengers on certain journeys in special area) there shall be inserted at the end of the proviso to subsection (1) the following paragraph:—
'(d) nothing in this section shall apply to vehicles in the ownership of schools used for the conveyance of pupils to and from their homes and school.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last Amendment which I shall inflict upon your Lordships' House. As the Government, these last three or four days, have been so conciliatory and helpful, I am hoping that I can have one last success, because by this Amendment I seek again to remove an anomaly which I do not think the Government intend should remain. It is to try and do something for the safety of small children.
In London there are a number of these small privately owned kindergarten schools where the little toddlers go before they start on their serious educational journey through life. It is the desire of a number of proprietors of these small schools, and certainly of the parents, that these small children of a very tender age should be collected at their homes and brought to school and then taken back to their homes after school, so that they do not have to be met and transported under the care of their parents, and do not have to withstand the perils of the streets of London and of getting on or off public service vehicles.
Again by a decision of the Divisional Court, followed by a ruling by the licensing authority, anyone who uses a motor vehicle carrying over seven passengers—that is over the limit of a private motor car—is really operating a stage carriage. The legal decision in this case was that although the motor vehicle concerned was transporting scholars and no charge was made, since all the costs were met out of the school fees, which were adjusted to cover the cost, the service amounted to a stage carriage because, in reality, separate fares were being charged. I do not agree with that view, but that is not the burden of my complaint, although it does mean that any one of these school proprietors who requires to run this service for the little children must have a public service licence and must have surveillance by the police, and so on, in exactly the same way as a stage carriage owner.
I am not objecting to that; I do not want to go so far as to get the Government to alter that particular law. But here is the problem. Under Section 16 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, nobody can run a vehicle of this description; in other words, he cannot operate an express or stage carriage (which the law says this motor car is), without the permission of London Transport. It has come to my knowledge that although a number of applications have been made to London Transport for permission to operate these motor cars to take the kiddies from school to home and from home to school, in every case permission has been refused—on the grounds. I am told, that they should use public transport. That is the very thing I want to stop them from having to do. I do not think it is right to subject

651
children of very tender years, toddling along in their first essay into school life, to crossing busy London streets and to getting on and off buses and all those dangers. I do not think my Amendment is open to abuse. If it is, then seal it up; but I urge the Government to do something. Do let us try to do something to cut down the appalling accidents, the loss of life and personal injury to small children on the streets of London. If we can do something in this matter, I am sure your Lordships' good offices will be well rewarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is, of course, an oblique attack on the monopoly of London Transport Executive. What I find difficult, however, is the fact that we do not know of any school which owns buses of the type the noble Lord describes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are not buses; they are ordinary cars. It is the utility and dual purpose vehicle I am talking about.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has in mind cars of under eight passengers?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, seven or eight passengers.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: So far as I am informed, the rule which the London Transport Executive have in this matter is that they invariably grant consent where the children are under eight years of age. I go on to say this. Where they are over eight years of age, the London Transport Executive do not normally grant consent where their own services are adequate. I have made inquiries, and so far as we know no complaint has been made, either to the L.T.E. or the Metropolitan Licensing Authority. In those circumstances, I find it hard to say that there is a case here for some change in the existing law which would effect what the noble Lord has in mind. I will certainly make it a point to look into. If the noble Lord will give me evidence of people who are dissatisfied, I shall be only too glad to look into it; but I would point out to him that if he wants to get what I take to be a road service licence—is not that what the noble Lord wants?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not mind that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: He would still have to appear before the licensing authority, and the London Transport Executive would be able to object.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not object to that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: And, if his reasons were not sound, he would still not get the licence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My information is substantially different from that of the noble Lord. If he will give me his information. I will look into it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl. My information is certainly directly contrary to his. There must be some misunderstanding. I do not want to have freedom from the Road Traffic Act. I want to stop abuse. I want people to have to go to the licensing authority to make their case. I do not want there to be any abuse. But my information is clear: that numerous applications have been made, and there is no one who can tell me that he has ever been granted permission by London Transport Executive. However, I will see that the noble Earl is given all the evidence available. I thank him very much for his promise to do something if the position is as I have stated it to be. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD MANCROFT: I am certain that your Lordships will hear with great pleasure that the last Amendment on our list is purely formal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 39, column 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections twenty-four and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before six o'clock.