ROAD TRAFFIC BILL

HL Deb 02 July 1956 vol 198 cc186-324

2.41 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into 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.

Clause 1:

Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles

1.—(1) The provisions of this and the next following section shall have effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether the prescribed statutory requirements relating Ito the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment are complied with.

(3) Examinations for the purposes of this section shall be carried out by persons, not being officers of the Minister, authorised for those purposes by the Minister (hereinafter referred to as "authorised examiners"), by inspectors appointed by the Minister, or by inspectors appointed by any council of a county, county borough or large burgh (within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947), designated by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

(9) The powers conferred by this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved in subsection (3), to omit all words from "out" down to and including "examiners". The noble Lord said: The first Amendment stands in my name in precisely the same way as did the first Amendment in 1954, when something similar was before your Lordships. This peculiar Bill was presented to your Lordships' House in 1954, went through a lengthy Committee stage and was sent to another place, but owing to the General Election it was lost upon the wayside. It has now made its appearance in another place, and Clause 1, presented there, was vastly different from the clause that comes before your Lordships' House now. During the course of debate in another place, it was felt that vehicle testing to see whether vehicles were road worthy should take place in testing stations. Your Lordships never contested that. It is quite erroneous for the charge to be made—as it has been made—that your Lordships were against vehicle testing as a contribution to road safety. That is completely wrong. What your Lordships did—and this is all your Lordships did—when the earlier Bill was before the House, was to say that the testing should take two forms. In the first place, the emphasis was to be on the spot check. Secondly, your Lordships decided that testing should take place only at Government testing stations and not at stations that were owned, managed and controlled by the motor repairing industry. On that occasion I proposed that the power of the Minister to appoint as testing stations what are colloquially known as garages should be removed from the Bill. And your Lordships agreed. Now, the provision is in again.

I am not going to weary your Lordships with the whole of the arguments which I advanced before. But the passage of time has hardened my opinion that it is entirely wrong for the issue of any Governmental licence—and when I say "Governmental licence" I mean a licence issued on behalf of the Government or, rather, to use what is perhaps a better expression, on behalf of the State, such as a driving licence, an Excise licence, the licences that are needed to enable any motorist in this country to put a car on the road and drive it—to be dependent in any way on the grant of a certificate of fitness of a vehicle issued by someone who has an interest in whether that vehicle is roadworthy or not. In my view that is entirely wrong; and, as I said on Second Reading, if the principle which the Government seek here to introduce—that is, that a private enterprise motor repairing works shall be entitled to issue a certificate of fitness that will enable a motorist to obtain a licence to run his car on the road—is right, then it is also right in principle that the driving tests which are at the present time carried out by examiners of the Ministry of Transport should also be handed over to the motor trade. And the same would apply, I suggest, to any other type of licence which the citizen of this country has to secure in order to use a machine of any description.

As matters stand, this is to be the sole exception in this country. Motor vehicles of all kinds are subject to inspection by officials as to their fitness to run on the roads. All public service vehicles require a certificate issued by the certifying officers of the Ministry of Transport under Section 68 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act. All goods vehicles are subject to tests for roadworthiness, again by certifying officers or examiners of the Ministry of Transport. All vehicles, including motor cars and motor cycles, are subject to tests for mechanical fitness under the Construction and Use Regulations, 1955. But every test has to be carried out by an impartial official of the Ministry of Transport. Every London taxicab has to undergo a technical examination—again by impartial inspectors who, in this instance, act for the Metropolitan Police. And every vehicle that ever meets with an accident on the roads of this country is also subject to a fitness test—again under the Construction and Use Regulations—by an independent examiner of the Ministry of Transport.

This will be the only instance in the whole of the jurisdiction of this country where a private garage—I use that word with the reserve which I have mentioned before—will be able to say "Yea" or "Nay" to the question of whether a motorist can obtain a licence. If he runs his car on the road without a certificate he can be fined the sum of £20. First, on principle, I say that the system proposed is wrong. Secondly, I say that it is wrong because I do not think it is right to put upon the shoulders of someone who has a commercial interest in the transaction the duty of deciding whether or not he shall issue that certificate. Is it right in such a case to tell a garage proprietor that he is to be the arbiter as to whether one of his customers, to whom he looks for his financial sustenance, for his living, should have a certificate or not? If that is right, if that is a good principle, why not hand over to the same man authority to issue driving licences? What is the difference between testing a person to see whether he is competent to drive a motor car and testing the vehicle that a person is going to drive to see whether it is fit to be driven on the roads of this country? This is a matter simply and solely of expediency. Principle has been thrown overboard and expediency brought in.

What is going to happen? The Minister said in another place, and I believe that the noble Earl said on Second Reading, that if private garages were made inspection stations, they would be chosen with great care. You cannot do it; because if you are going to have one, you are going to have 15,000. In the present state of the national economy, are you going to create a monopoly or quasi-monopoly? The motor vehicle selling and repairing industry is one of the most, if not the most, highly competitive trades in the country. Thousands of pounds a year are spent in persuading the customers of A to become customers of B—what is called, in the vernacular of the advertising trade, in "stimulating consumer preference"; in other words, seducing the customers of one firm for another. Are you really going to set up a monopoly of one testing station in a small town or two or three in a larger town? What about the customer who has had his car kept in good condition by his own repairer; are you going to say to him that he has to take his car to a competing firm in order to have a certificate issued?

Is not this system open to abuse? I bring no charge of dishonesty. It has been brought, and I deprecate it, as I did on Second Reading. It is not a question of dishonesty; it is a question of public policy. Are the Government going to set up in this highly competitive industry one or two testing stations in an area and then say to all motorists in that area that they have to go to firms competing with their own garages in order to have their cars tested? If the Government intend to do that, I say that they are building up something they have no right to build up. If I were in the repairing industry and could persuade the Government to give me an exclusive right to run a Government testing station in a town of 150,000 inhabitants, I would do all the tests for nothing and pay the Government for the monopoly right of doing so. But that is not what the Government want.

Very likely we shall be told that the Government cannot run the scheme without appointing private garages as testing stations. Perhaps the Government will tell us why. While I do not for one moment charge the Government with lukewarmness about the dreadful problem of road accidents, I do say that there is a lack of faith that this scheme is going to contribute anything at all to road safety. If it would do so, why will they not provide the money? Perhaps we shall hear to-day. I am not going to say anything further on the merits of the form of testing set out in the first clause. I believe that many people think that this form of testing is going to improve materially the road safety in this country. I wish I could so delude myself, but honesty compels me to state that I do not think it is going to make any contribution at all. I think that that contribution is going to be made under Clause 3 and not under Clause 1. However, I am not going to oppose it. But I am going to oppose the provision that private garages should he appointed testing stations, because I think that that is wrong in principle and absolutely impracticable.

I suppose there are 30,000 garages in the vehicle repairing trade who will claim to be qualified as testing stations, but there will be about 15,000 who are really qualified. How the Government are going to police 15,000 garages, I do not know. The Minister has said that all the garages which are going to be appointed under the provisions of the Bill to carry out these inspections will be under strict supervision. Whether that means that there is going to be one officer of the Ministry of Transport to every one of the 15,000, I do not know. We may be told that the scheme car not be operated without these private garages. That I deny. It is a false statement, because it can be. It has to be tried out in exactly the same way as the proposals for parking meters; it has to be tried out in an area to see what is required.

It is no good thinking that you can have about 70 to 100 repairers in private industry and ask motorists to go 40 or 50 miles for testing. It is no good thinking that private enterprise will go on working in the evenings and pay double trade union rates, because motorists cannot get there during the day, without enormously increasing the cost. I have heard various figures quoted of what this testing is going to cost. It was glibly stated by the Minister at the start that it would be about 5s. Now it has gone up a bit. I should think that the minimum charge for an inspection will have to be £1, even if it is done in ordinary working hours; and if it is done outside ordinary working hours at time-and-a-half or double-time, it just will not be possible to do it for £1.

At the present time, this is an absolutely futile scheme. I suggest to the Government that they should try this proposal out with their own inspectors, using the municipalities, whose aid they are going to enlist, and their equipment. They should try it out in one area, choosing whichever area they like, and see how far they can get with Government inspectors. Then if we find (a) that it makes a useful contribution, and (b) that we have to increase the number of inspectors, I shall be the first to say that that is what we have to do. But at the present time I think it is a false step and just a matter of expediency which will lead to chaos and not to what we want—namely, a contribution to the road safety of this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("out") to ("by") in line 21.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

3.0 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

When the previous Bill of this nature was before the House in the last Parliament I was one of those who maintained that, for various reasons, private garages would be unable to carry out inspection work. I still maintain that, owing to the difficulty of obtaining suitable testing staff, and the fact that garages already have their own work to do, the scheme is unlikely to be successful. On the other hand, I feel that, if we are to have this inspection, unless private garages are used motorists may well be put to great inconvenience, because of the probable scarcity of Government testing stations, the distance motorists will have to go and the time they will have to waste in order to get a certificate. If private garages are to be appointed as testing stations, there is no doubt that a large number will have to be used, for the reason that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. In many ways I am in sympathy with the Amendment, but I do not feel that I can support it, because it might lead to more onerous conditions for motorists.

EARL HOWE

Motoring organisations generally have been accused of selfishness, but the trouble is that to-day, with so many road accidents, almost any wildcat scheme will receive attention. So this question of the testing of vehicles has come along. It is difficult to discuss a part of the scheme without discussing the whole of it. What is the reason for having commercial garages brought in? It is more or less the same as that for having vehicles tested at all. The theory has been put forward by somebody that old vehicles are responsible for accidents. We have all seen in our time a number of old vehicles on the road which, from the point of view of general appearance and that sort of thing certainly leave a good deal to be desired; but when you come to decide how far these vehicles are responsible for road accidents, you get nowhere. The figures vary from 2 per cent., 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., and the Road Research Board have now put it up to 20 per cent. The Hendon Testing Station is referred to, and is supposed to have produced some reliable figures. But nobody can say—and least of all, the Hendon Testing Station—whether the test given there is a fair sample of the sort of test that a vehicle will receive. First of all, the people there are, presumably, all specialists. I understand that there are ten of them, and that they are all doing this job, and nothing else, from day to day.

This Amendment deals with the proposal to bring commercial garages into the scheme. There is a lot to be said for tests, providing that they are thorough; but nobody has yet been able to tell us how thorough the tests will be. On the Second Reading of the Bill I asked a number of questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—and en passant I should like to thank the noble Lord for the charming letter that he sent me dealing with so many of the questions that I felt I had to raise. Unfortunately, the question relating to the thoroughness of tests, was not dealt with in that letter. I asked about the question of testing brakes, because the answer to that question would give some idea of how thorough the examination will be. I beg your Lordships to bear with me a little on this, because whether or not it is necessary to employ private garages on the scheme must depend on the thoroughness of the test. The more thorough the test, the longer it is likely to take, and the more expert the people required will have to be in order to carry it out. I asked the noble Lord on Second Reading whether he could tell us about the examination of brakes. Could he say, for example, how far it will be possible to test the brakes of a motor vehicle adequately without taking the drums off to find out how much lining is left, or whether the linings have more or less gone and are down to the rivets? Even if they were more or less worn out and down to the rivets they would probably pass a perfunctory test, but they would not pass a proper test.

It is proposed in the Bill to bring private garages into the scheme. I suggest to the Government that the first thing is to see that the tests are absolutely the same throughout the country, and that they are not just perfunctory tests to "get away with it," or anything like that. The Hendon Testing Station is equipped with all sorts of machinery that is not available to the ordinary garage. It seems to me that this question needs to be cleared up. If we are to bring in private garages, what sort of equipment are those private garages to have? How many garages shall we have? If we have an inadequate number, it is going to be a terrible business for the motorist who has to have his vehicle tested to get to one within a reasonable time. Will the motorist get priority when he arrives, or will the ordinary garage work take priority? We have not been told anything about what will be required of the ordinary garages before they can be appointed. Are they to be asked how many mechanics they have? If so, of what sort of competence will they have to be? These questions may sound futile, but they are important. There will be an outcry against the whole scheme, and it could quite conceivably get into disrepute, not because it deserves it but because the machinery it is proposed to set up is inadequate for what it is to be required to do.

I submit, therefore, that we must be told a great deal about the necessity for bringing in commercial garages. The moment you bring in the commercial garage, you open the door, possibly, to every sort of hanky-panky. Even now, it is easy enough at an ordinary garage to get priority of treatment ±f you slip half a crown into the palm of the right fellow. I am sure that nobody here would want anything like that to happen in connection with the employment of commercial garages under this scheme. Yet I submit that that is more than likely to happen. Then again, where will the garages get the staff to do the testing? I submit that the staff just does not exist in these days. Anybody who has had anything to do with garage work will know perfectly well how hopeless it is to try to get a really competent mechanic. You are lucky if you find one in an ordinary garage. But it will take much more than one mechanic to deal with the rush of cars that may have to be dealt with under this scheme.

Nothing has yet been said about the motor-cycle aspect of this matter. If it is important to have the four-wheeled vehicle tested, so also it must be important to have the two-wheeled vehicle tested. But motor-cycle work is very much a specialised business, and people who deal with motor-cycles are, on the whole, specialists in that work. I believe that the ordinary garage does not do much motor-cycle work—if I am wrong, there are a number of noble Lords who can correct me.

I submit to your Lordships that, before giving approval to bringing in the private garage, we must ask for more information. The Government may say—or may be going to say, for all I know—that in the first instance this scheme will not apply to the whole of the country. I should not be in the least surprised if they said that. But imagine anyone living in one part of the country where the test was brought in, while some of his friends, perhaps, were living in another part of the country where commercial garages and all the rest of the apparatus were not functioning. He would no doubt have a considerable grievance, as I am sure everybody would. Is this scheme going to be brought into operation before we know whether the Government are in a position to use the commercial garages? What sort of charges will be made for the work? Will they be standardised, and will the people who go there for a test have priority over those wanting repairs?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already indicated the undesirability of appointing a firm to do this work which has an interest in repairs. That, surely, must be obvious to everybody. I submit that this scheme should be examined with the greatest possible care in all its aspects before commercial garages are brought in. There is no Party issue in this matter; it is just a question of what to do for the best. We all know what the Government are aiming at. I do not agree that the old vehicles are responsible for accidents to such a large extent, and I shall quote figures later to show that there is something in what I say. I submit to your Lordships that, before we give authority to the Government to bring in the commercial garages, a far more watertight case must be made out to ensure that the scheme is reasonable; that it is workable; that it is not going to produce every sort of anomaly, and that it is not going to result in the motorist being compelled to pay yet again on top of his £400 million.

EARL ATTLEE

I cannot claim the great knowledge of the noble Earl who has just addressed us, but it seems to me that a member of the public, whether he is a driver or a person who is more often driven, wants more detailed information about this scheme. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply could give us a kind of picture of what happens in a country district. Take my own county of Buckinghamshire. How many of these licensed inspectors or private garages are we to have? Will it be only a few in the main towns? If that is so, there is bound to be great congestion in those towns.

The testing stations are to be designated. I submit that an intolerable strain will be placed on the conscience both of the garage proprietors and of the general public. One may say, "If I have got to have my car tested at this garage, well that is the place I am going to all the time." The garage proprietor is bound to have regard, consciously or subconsciously, to his regular customers. So there are then set up two separate classes of garage proprietors. I presume that the designated garages will have to employ highly skilled people. They will have all the skilled mechanics, and if one's car breaks down one will find that the other garages are only petrol stations.

I suggest that we want details about the proposed layout, about the number of inspectors and the number of cars in the area, and whether motorists are to be assigned to a particular garage. That is one way it might be done. On the other hand, if we are to have a choice, it is quite obvious that we shall choose the man we know. Naturally, he is going to lean a little to people who are his customers. This proposal is something entirely new in our law. I do not know what the qualifications of the testers are going to be, but it is setting up a number of people in an invidious position with powers over the ordinary citizen, which I suggest should not be allowed.

LORD GIFFORD

If the Amendment is accepted—and I think on balance one must agree that in certain circumstances the testing of vehicles is necessary—an intolerable burden will be put upon the motorist. He will suffer great inconvenience if the only place at which he can have his vehicle tested is a Government testing station, and I feel it is absolutely essential that he should be able to go to reputable garages. Let us try to look at the matter from the ordinary, sensible motorist's point of view. He sends his car into a garage for its periodical service or because of some small breakdown. He looks at his diary and he says, "My car is due for testing within a month or six weeks." If the garage is an authorised testing station he says, "While the car is in, you had better test it at the same time and, if it is fit, give me a certificate." What happens? Probably the garage reports back and says, "Mr. So-and-so, we have had a look at your car and think that the brakes need re-lining before we can give you a certificate." You say, "Very well, get on with it." The work is done, and eventually the car comes out in good condition, with its certificate. Surely, you have fought half the battle when you have made the motorist go to a garage and have the necessary work done on his car; you have done a great deal towards ensuring the safety of the car.

It has been said that the system proposed is open to abuse. Let us look at that suggestion more carefully. In what way is it open to abuse? I suggest that it is open to abuse in two main ways. The first is that if you are a good customer of the garage it will be said, "Well, the garage man dare not refuse you a certificate, because if he does he will lose your custom." I do not feel that that would happen. Provided the garage man made it clear what was wrong with the car, most motorists would gladly have the work done. On the other hand, if he is unscrupulous and issues the certificate without examining the car properly, surely his carelessness will soon come home to roost, because sooner or later a car tested by that garage will have an accident and the police will discover that it is in a bad mechanical condition. They will see who issued the certificate, and there is the drastic remedy that that garage may be removed from the list of garages allowed to test vehicles. Surely, that is a risk which no garage would lightly accept.

The other possible abuse, as I see it, is this. You take your car to a garage you have not dealt with before. The man is a bit short of work, he rings you up with a long list of defects, costing £60 or £70 to put right, and says, "Unless you have this work done I cannot give you a certificate." You have a good remedy there. If you are not satisfied that this expensive work is necessary, you can take the car away to another garage and get an alternative estimate, and subsequently get your certificate. It seems to me that this so-called abuse, when examined carefully, has very little substance. As a result of this Bill, the motorist in the future is going to have a most difficult time queuing up for Government testing stations and wasting whole or half days from work waiting his turn. It is bad enough now. There is three months' delay for the learner driver to be tested. What it would be like with Government testing stations only, I hesitate to think. Therefore, for these reasons, I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment which I do not feel is practical.

3.21 p.m.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

I feel that, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has made a speech full of sagacity and common sense. One of the difficulties surrounding this subject of road safety is that, while everybody agrees that we ought to do everything possible to reduce road accidents, whenever a proposal is put forward objections are forthcoming from every quarter. It is easy to make a speech and say: "What are you going to do about this?" or "What are y au going to do about that?", but it seems to me that what we should keep principally in mind is the goal, and the duty, we have before us to reduce this appalling casualty list. The issue is a perfectly simple one. It is not a surprise which is being sprung upon the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who speaks with such force and authority, told us of the long history leading up to this matter, a history which we hope will come to an end with the passage of this Bill, but other speakers, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, have spoken of the matter as if nobody had ever given any reflection to it. It has been the subject of many inquiries; it has been the subject of long discussions in the House, and I personally have no doubt whatever—

EARL ATTLEE

I was not in this House when this came up before, but I understand that the wisdom of this House rejected this scheme.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Certainly.

EARL ATTLEE

Yes, quite.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

But that does not mean tint there were not long discussions—quite the contrary—and it does not mean that since then the Ministry have not discharged their task of looking into the matter. To me, it is inconceivable that the responsible Ministry, occupied solely with the duty of dealing with these matters, would come forward with a proposal to institute road tests if they had no idea how they were going to operate. It seems to me quite inconceivable. The issue really is: do we want tests for vehicles or not? That is the only issue.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

No.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

That is the real issue. The Minister has said that the carrying of this Amendment would wreck the clause and virtually make nonsense of the whole Bill of which this clause is the centre. The Minister says that. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, moves his Amendment. He pours scorn on the proposal in the Bill, but he puts forward no alternative. Are we to have these tests or not? Twenty years ago, or more, I was Minister of Transport. We instituted driving tests. Scorn was poured upon that proposal. It was said that it was not practical, that it might be possible to bribe the examiners, that the test taken on one particular day was not a necessary proof that the test would produce the same result on another day or before a different examiner. But who would go back on driving tests to-day? Who can measure the contribution that they have made to safety on the roads? Thousands of people must have been kept off the roads because they were bad drivers or potential killers.

It would have been logical at any moment since then, in the light of our experience of tests for drivers, to institute tests for vehicles. In fact, it is a much more natural proposal to institute a test for a vehicle, which can be examined coolly and collectively, whereas a driver is temperamental. It would have been logical to do that at any time, but it has never been practical to do so because the way to do it, according to what I understand to be the logic of the Amendment, would be to set up an enormous bureaucracy. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that we should want at least 700 officials to test 2 million vehicles.

EARL ATTLEE

May I put it to the noble Lord that what might have been done was to follow the noble Lord's example?

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Yes.

EARL ATTLEE

I understand that the noble Lord did not entrust driving tests to private commercial people.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

No; but I say that this is a question not of theory but of what can practically be done.

EARL HOWE

I am sure the noble Lord would not want to misquote me. I never mentioned any figure at all. He said I used the figure "700". I never mentioned it at all.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

I think I am right in saying that on the Second Reading debate the noble Earl mentioned that figure. My noble friend surely has not withdrawn his figure?

EARL HOWE

No.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

If he has, so much the better, but he showed, by analysis of what had happened at Hendon, that we should require 700 new officials to examine 2 million motor cars. That is so, is it not? Could any Government, in the present state of affairs, come forward with a proposal to employ 700 new officials and increase the bureaucracy to that extent? A spokesman of the motor manufacturers and traders said in another place that 1,500 officials would be required. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that it is not practical to do it in that way; that we cannot expect to increase the payroll of the State to that extent, or to find these people in that particular way. But they can be found in another way, by using existing institutions. If existing institutions cannot be used, it will be impossible to have the tests, so the Minister introduces a flexible clause allowing these tests to be carried out by Government inspectors, by local authorities or by garages.

I should have thought that the garages selected would have an enhanced sense of responsibility, that being involved in the scheme would call forth the best in them. But, supposing some of them "fell by the wayside," the results would not be so bad. It would mean that a few defective cars got through, but, when we measure the potential good that the clause will do, that would be a very small price to pay. If, as we are told by the Road Research Authority, 20 per cent. of the accidents are caused primarily through mechanical defects, that means that 1,000 lives would be saved in a year and that 5,000 fewer people would be injured on the roads. If two or three garages act dishonestly and let a vehicle through, I say that that is a very small price to pay for the good result of the saving of life and limb in such considerable measure.

So it seems to me that we get a direct advantage from allowing this great new reform to be instituted. It is a great reform, one of the most substantial reforms that have been introduced in the history of road safety. We should act very poorly if we rejected it merely by being mesmerised in advance by all kinds of difficulties which we know in practice are hardly likely to arise under the direction of the responsible Ministry. Not only shall we get direct advantages, but we shall get indirect advantages, as the noble Lord. Lord Gifford, has said. The fact that a man must have his car tested, whether the test is good or not, will make him desire to keep his vehicle in such a condition that it will pass the test. It seems to me, as an ex-Minister of Transport, that we ought to take a little risk, even if we think that the details have not been perfectly worked out, as I am sure they will have been by the time the Bill is passed. We should act unjustly by the British public whom we desire to protect if we rejected a reform of this magnitude and of this hopefulness.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The noble Lord who has just sat down has enjoyed himself by putting up a number of Aunt Sallies of his own imagination and then knocking them down—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

But nobody on this side has ever said that he was against inspection of vehicles; on the contrary, we believe it will be one of the greatest contributions that can be made to road safety.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not say that anybody was against the inspection of road vehicles. I said that the only way to have a system which could be worked was to include the private garages. That is what I said.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The noble Lord said that. But my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth would not have put forward this Amendment had he not been perfectly satisfied that it was practicable to carry out inspections without using commercial garages. It is a practice that is, and has been, carried out successfully in a number of other countries, in a number of States in the United States, with perfect success, over a number of years. The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, himself—and we are all grateful to him for what he did as Minister of Transport, and for instituting driving tests—did not appoint as his agents for carrying out those tests the motoring schools; he appointed Government examiners. We have never heard that that constituted a tremendous bureaucracy.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

Would the noble Earl forgive me for one moment? There is a fundamental difference between driving licences and this matter. A driving licence test comes only once in a man's life; this is something that a car has to undergo every year. I think that is the fundamental difference.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I should have said that it was a difference of degree rather than of principle. We are told that a bureaucracy will spring up, on (I think the noble Lord said) the payroll of the State. But surely that is not so. The fees for the examinations will be calculated to cover the overhead costs of the inspection stations. All that was perfectly satisfactorily worked out when this House rejected a similar proposal two years ago. Nobody then said that it was utterly impossible to institute vehicle inspection. I think that my noble, friend's Amendment will enable the test of the condition of a vehicle to be carried out under proper safeguards without the abuse and the dangers that are inseparable from using commercial agencies.

LORD DERWENT

I shall not keep your Lordships more than a moment, but I have a feeling that it would be perhaps a good thing to let the Minister have a shot, provided that he can deal with the practical difficulties. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, is very optimistic. When this Bill was before your Lordships, again when it was before another place, and now since it has been back with us, when practical difficulties are raised we are all told that we are being "naughty boys." But we are given no practical answer. Before I could vote for the Government on this matter I should like them to answer certain questions that have been asked before and never answered. If private garages are to be used, what do the Government expect to use in numbers? Are the garages to be chosen with great care and, therefore, very few appointed? A large number of cars are owned by people who work. If they are first in the queue, they are lucky. They may have to go twenty or thirty miles, but they will be there only a few moments; but if they are twentieth in the queue they will miss half a day's work. Can we afford that? On the other hand, if there are to be a large number of garages, such as the 15,000 which the noble Lord opposite has mentioned, how are they to be inspected, and what do the Government expect to be the additional cost of additional inspectors? I am not suggesting to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that he should give an exact figure, but merely a reasonable idea of what this scheme will cost. If the Government have no idea, then I think we are quite right to say "Do not give these powers to the Government". If they have an idea, and we are to be told what these costs are, may we also hear how they arrive at them?

LORD ELTON

As one who, in a fairly ineffective way, has been campaigning for road safety in your Lordships' House for more than twenty years, I should like to say that I hope very much that the Minister is going to "stick to his guns" in this matter—if that is not an inappropriate metaphor for a Bill of this kind which is designed primarily, I hope, to save life. Obviously, some of its opponents are implacable. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, after we have finished with this rather lengthy discussion, to which I am afraid I am adding, though a moment or two, is to seek to remove the clause altogether. As for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and with all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is easy to sympathise with them: they would not be sitting where they are if they were not fanatics of nationalisation, and therefore—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Would the noble Lord withdraw a comment like that? I do not think it is fair comment. We view just as seriously as the Government—and the Government will agree—the prevention of road accidents. We should not be castigated as being fanatics of nationalisation. I think that is a quite improper remark.

LORD ELTON

I do not suggest for a moment that the only motive of the noble Earl and the noble Lord for this is a doctrinaire devotion, but surely, if one believes, as we have always been led to believe, that things are best managed by public authorities, then it is fair to comment that that may be a contribution to their views on this subject. But those of us who do not feel that the best manner in which to solve every problem is to leave it in the often inert grasp of some public authority, will, I hope, reflect on this Bill—I delighted in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord HoreBelisha—as doing all too little to abate the unending massacre on the roads.

I think this first clause is just about the most hopeful aspect of the entire Bill. I am not convinced by the horrific pictures drawn from the Opposition Front Bench of what may, or might, or must, happen if this testing by authorised private garages is introduced. It may perhaps indicate the fault of the Government that they have left the picture so little sketched in. I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replies he will fill in the picture for us in much greater detail. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, I have every confidence that the Ministry has reflected on this problem; that it does not come new to it as some of the critics still suppose, and that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a method of authorising private garages which will be devoid of the kind of abuse which certainly some noble Lords seems to expect of it. Finally, I would only add that in my view this Bill does all too little to diminish the number of those drivers who kill or maim because they drive too fast; it does all too little to diminish the number of drivers who kill and maim because they are drunk. For goodness sake! do not let us hamstring the one clause which is, I believe, going to diminish the number of drivers who kill or maim because they are using a dangerous machine.

3.39 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I feel at the outset that perhaps I might deal with the purpose behind this clause, because it is of some consequence. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth said that he was not opposed to the principle of testing, but he made a number of deprecating remarks, such as that it was an "absolutely futile scheme" and that it would make no contribution at all. Therefore, I hope I may make just one or two references to the importance of the problem with which we are here faced. I had a rather careful examination made last week at Hendon of the cars which were going through. This went on from June 26 until June 30. Examination was made of cars which came through there and which if neglected would be likely soon to have dangerous consequences. Of those over ten years old 34 per cent. were found to be in that condition. Of those less than ten years old 17 per cent. were in that condition. That is taking into consideration brakes and steering only; it is not taking into consideration lights. If we take lights into consideration, the respective figures go up to 43 per cent. and 22 per cent. On any showing, that is a serious position which the Government have to tackle.

I would add only this. I have recently had a letter from the Road Research Laboratory, who are conducting an inquiry about this matter at Slough, and the director writes to me that the condition of many of the vehicles was deplorable. Those are vehicles offered voluntarily for testing just outside Slough. If any of your Lordships would care to see that test and would get in touch with my office, we should be glad to arrange for you to go next Sunday and see what is being done there. In the circumstances I have mentioned, there is really no doubt that we must tighten up testing.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put emphasis on the importance of the sale of second-hand cars. I do not underestimate its importance; but, after all, second-hand cars are not sold every year, and there is always the danger of mixing up this question with a guarantee. This test is every year. He has also put a lot of emphasis—not so much to-day, perhaps, as sometimes—on spot checking. I want to say clearly that spot checking is not an alternative to this form of checking, and can never be, and I should like to explain why. In the first place, in order to make any sensible effect on the cars on the road it would be necessary to have spot checks running into hundreds on the roads of this country. I do not want to give an estimate, but it would run into many hundreds, and each of those spot checks would require the attendance of a policeman at a time when we are rather short of police. If we set up such a system it would be much less efficient than if the tests were carried out in a properly established testing station; and not only less efficient but much less economic than if we did it at a proper establishment, a testing station. It is almost impossible to do spot checking in the middle of towns; and where it is done it leads to congestion. For those reasons spot checking is not the answer.

How are we to do routine testing on cars? I have here a rather interesting report which was made by New York State. About two years ago New York State examined exactly the problem we are examining to-day: whether the testing of cars ought in fact to be done by publicly-owned stations or privately-owned stations. If any of your Lordships are interested, I should be very glad to let you see the results of their examination. They said it is perfectly true that it is practicable to do it by public stations and it has some advantages. It is practicable to do it by private stations. But the point which led them to come down in favour of private stations was precisely the point the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hore Belisha, made: that is, the convenience of the motorists themselves. I have to make the point that in the present situation the Government could not have resources devoted to this at the present time. Therefore I must regard this as a wrecking Amendment, at least for the time being.

Noble Lords have asked for details of what is proposed, and I should like to deal with one or two points which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made in this matter. He was frightened of congestion. The whole point of using private garages is, of course, to make testing places numerous. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, raised. The idea, frankly, is not to select garages at all but to accept any garage which qualifies—any garage which in fact satisfies the Minister that it is competent and reliable to do the work. I think that is the only way to do it.

LORD HAMPTON

Might I ask the noble Earl whether that means that garages who wish to do this work can apply to the Minister for a licence to do it?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That is broadly the position. The details will have to be arranged. One of the difficulties at the present time to my giving as full details as I could is that the Minister is not in a position to negotiate with anybody until the Bill is passed. When that happens there will in due course be an Order placed before Parliament which noble Lords can discuss if they wish.

EARL ATTLEE

That will, in effect, mean that any garage which is not qualified to examine will have a certain slur on it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I would not necessarily say that. I think it is fair to say this: there might be a slur if the authorisation were withdrawn. But some garages do one thing and some do another. I think it would not be true to say there is a slur, for this reason. Normally, garages who did this work would be expected to have certain equipment. It would not be purely a question of ability. They would be expected to have certain equipment, particularly brake-testing equipment and equipment for testing the accuracy of lights, and that sort of thing.

The other point the noble Earl made was that an unbearable strain would be put on the garage proprietors. In those circumstances an unbearable strain might be put on a garage proprietor whenever any car is taken into any garage, because the garage proprietor has to say. "Have you got to have a new steering column? Have you got to renew your main axle? Have you got to have new springs?" That is precisely the question, except far more limited in scope, which is put upon them in this testing. The real point is that the choice which the garage proprietor has does not offer very tempting offerings, one way or the other. If, when a car is unfit, it is passed fit, in the first place it is not a very kindly thing to do to anybody's car. If you are a good client of the garage and the garage proprietor sends your car out not fit, he is not treating you very well. On the other hand, he might say a car is not fit when in fact it is. I think the answer there is wholly covered by the possibility of appeal. There is appeal to the Minister if anyone wishes to do so.

I hope that your Lordships will agree to what is proposed in this subsection, because if we do not go forward with it I am sorry to say that this scheme, which I think is of real importance, will not come into operation, at all events for a very long time. There are many details to be filled in, I agree. It is not easy to make an absolutely cut and dried picture of the way in which it will work. I think it is fair to remember that when the Bill was in the other place the Leader of the Labour Party there said, quite frankly, that this work could not be done exclusively by Government stations. That was said frankly and openly in the other place, and I am quite certain that it is the case. If the noble Lord's Amendment is carried it means no more or less than this: that this work cannot be done.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My impression is that in the other place the leader of the opposition to this particular Bill said that it could not be done wholly by Government testing stations; but he also said that it could be done by Government testing stations plus municipal stations spread over the country. If the noble Earl reads the debate, he will find that the Opposition in another place divided on the very Amendment which I am going to ask your Lordships to divide on this afternoon.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I quite agree. It is one of those ideological Amendments on which the House divides from time to time. As the noble Lord has challenged me, I must see what he did say. He said: We have said that there may be a case for having private garages authorised.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes, in the remote districts, as I have already said. If the noble Earl had taken notice he would know that I suggested that the Government should try out this scheme in various areas and find out the difficulties. No one would suggest that a Government station should be set up, for instance, anywhere to the north of Aberdeen. That would be futile. We might have to amend the scheme so far as the remote country districts are concerned. That is what I said.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

We are in this difficulty that, broadly speaking, nothing can be done on this until an Order is laid before Parliament. Parliament will then have the opportunity of examining the matter in detail, and as time goes by it will be possible to see exactly how this scheme will work. I ask your Lordships to support this provision in the Bill because I believe that, without it, it will not be possible to take the important step forward which the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, has emphasised. I think it is one of the most important steps since the changes of 1934 which introduced the 30 m.p.h. speed limit and driving tests. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

EARL HOWE

The noble Earl has not answered one or two questions which I ventured to ask. I wanted to know what sort of test was to be adopted in the private garages as compared with the Hendon Testing Station. Is it going to be the same? I wanted to know also whether testing would take priority over repair work in private garages. Could we not he told that? The noble Earl has made a very eloquent speech, but he has not given us answers to those questions.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think I have answered these questions. We have said the tests will be for brakes, steering and lights. So far as priority is concerned, that will be for the garage to decide. There will be no obligation for the garage to give priority and no obligation for the garage to decide on postponement. It will be entirely a matter far the garage people to decide.

EARL HOWE

Surely the noble Earl realises that he is dealing with upwards of two million vehicles. Is the garage proprietor to be able to turn round on the queue which may be lined up at his place and say: "You must wait; I am too busy to deal with you now. You must `go away and play', and come back some other time." Surely the thing is going to be a little bit organised.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The state of affairs which the noble Earl has just visualised is what we are seeking to avoid. The noble Earl has described what we consider would be a danger if the scheme were confined to Government stations. We want a large number of garages to have this duty of inspection, so that the ordinary motorist will have a wide selection of places to which to take his car, and will be able to get quick service. I am quite certain that it is far better for the motorist to have a large number of garages available to him so that he can select the one he pleases. If we have only a limited number of stations, there will inevitably be much queueing.

EARL HOWE

Will it be possible to book the time?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Oh, yes, I think so.

EARL HOWE

It will be possible to ring up garages and fix a time for your car to be tested?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think that the noble Earl must have had some experience of garages in the past—I am sure he has been to one at some time or other. Surely he must know that he can book a time for an overhaul or any other job which he may require. Doubtless the same will apply in regard to testing.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

There is one thing which your Lordships must have gathered from this discussion, and that is that the Government: cannot answer one question, because they do not know how to answer it. They have not really thought out this scheme. If I may just occupy a few minutes of your Lordships' time to reply to the debate, I should like to say, with great respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, for whose-veracity and accuracy in debate I have great admiration, that surely he is a little behind the level of events when he says that have criticised the scheme but have offered no alternative. I have consistently for two years put forward an alternative which I think is the right one. One can go on setting up examples against examples. The noble Earl has now switched to New York for his example. I can switch to California. They do not have public testing stations, and they do not have private testing stations in California. They have spot checks. They have road barricades where vehicles are checked. The two areas in California of Los Angeles and San Francisco are among the most traffic-used centres in the world. In Los Angeles there are 4 million inhabitants and 2¼ million motor cars—which means ore motor car for every 1.8 of the population. Shall I now say how they do this work, and hold up that as an example?

I think that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made a pertinent intervention. In the past, Lord Hore-Belisha was in the position, as a Minister, of having to defend his driving test system. Being a Minister is different from being on the Bench below the gangway: it is also different from being in the Opposition—I grant the noble Lord that. He did not say, "I am going to hand over all my testing work to private enterprise"—though I may offend the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if I talk about private enterprise. But this will be the only instance where the issuer of the licence is a man who has a direct pecuniary advantage in the issuing of that licence. Lord Gifford made my case. He made the whole case. What did he say? He said you take your car to get a certificate and then the man at the garage rings you up and says, "Your brakes want relining. I cannot issue you a certificate unless I reline your brakes." That work, incidentally, is not going to cost about £60 or £70.

LORD GIFFORD

I think the noble Lord is misquoting me. What I said was that you send your car in for its normal servicing in the first place, and you ask for a test at the same time. I also said that if the proprietors of the garage quoted to you an excessive amount for putting your car in order you had a good remedy. You could go to another garage and verify his fees.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I wrote down what the noble Lord said. He said: "The proprietor will then say to you, you want your brakes relined. Will you have it done? If you do, then I can issue a certificate." If the man said that you needed £60 or £70 worth of work done, of course you could, if you wished, take your car to another station. That is precisely what is going to happen. You will drive your car round; and if you cannot get a certificate at one place you will drive it round and round until you can get a certificate without having to spend any money. That is the whole case. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did not get an answer. Of course he cannot get an answer. The Ministry have not thought about it. The Minister in another place said, in effect: "I am going to select these stations with very great care. They will have to be very well equipped." The noble Earl now says that anyone who has the necessary facilities and skill and equipment can be appointed.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

And who is reliable.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Oh! Now the Minister is going to be an arbiter of business morals and technical competence—something that all the universities and technical schools of this country have shunned up to date. In what sense is he going to say the garage people are to be reliable: honesty? mechanical competence? Let me tell the noble Earl this fact—it came into my mind as he was speaking. I know a town of 185,000 inhabitants in this country where three out of the four distributors for the main makes of motor cars (I will not mention their names: your Lordships will know them) have not got apparatus for testing brakes. The British firm that produces the best car in the world has not a testing apparatus for brakes. There is only one place where brakes can be tested, and that is on the road. So in this town—and I can multiply the example all over the country—we shall find three of the largest distributors of motor cars, appointed by the manufacturers and having the highest technical qualifications, who will not be qualified to be examiners of motor cars for the purpose of this Bill because they have not got fallible brake-testing machines. What a farce!

The trouble is—and I say this with all the good will in the world—that the Government have not thought out this scheme. This Bill left your Lordship's House without this provision. It fell in what is colloquially known as the "slaughter of the innocents." It was presented by the Government in another place with no testing stations in it. As the noble Earl said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so wildly enthusiastic about this that, backed I suppose by his colleagues in the Cabinet, he will not grant a halfpenny for the erection of Government testing stations. So much for the Government's faith in this scheme as a contribution towards preventing road accidents! In another place the Opposition said that it was necessary to have testing stations run by the Government and owned by the municipalities, and they divided on the self-same Amendment that I have down here. So that the noble Earl cannot say that either the Government or the Opposition were wildly enthusiastic about private enterprise testing stations.

In one breath, the noble Earl says that if your Lordships go into the Division Lobby against this part of the Bill you will be delaying for a very long time this great inroad into a solution of the road accident problem. Then he says that this testing scheme is going to take a long time to bring into force because every detail has to come before your Lordships by statutory instrument. There will be long discussions. The trouble about statutory instruments is that the good are thrown out with the bad, because the House cannot amend them. I am certain that if the Government will forget the face-saving that they have to go through—indeed, I would say that your Lordships are almost being "shanghaied" into this—you are being told by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, that it is a wrecking Amendment: it is nothing of the kind—

LORD HORE-BELISHA

My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord's knowledge and his power of presenting his case, but I am still at a loss to understand—it may be my obtuseness—what his alternative proposal would involve. He keeps on saying that this can be done. What could be done? The noble Lord supports the idea of testing every car of a certain age and giving it a certificate. How many officers would that require under the noble Lord's scheme? Or does he want only a spot check?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, in my view this could be done with just as good results—I do not want to weary your Lordships by going into details—by a spot check, plus static stations plus mobile stations. It can all be done with just as much effectiveness, and even more, by those means. I put this simple point to the noble Lord who, with his experience as a motorist, will give an answer fairly. Which would better induce him to keep his motor car in good repair: the fear—or, let me say, the anxiety—that every time he went on the road he might get a spot check, or the fact that he knows that just prior to taking out his yearly Excise licence he must have his brakes, steering and lights in such an efficient state as to enable him to produce a certificate to the licensing authority? Will he give me an answer?

LORD SHORE-BELISHA

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's scheme would keep me in a constant state of anxiety, but the point I wish to be elucidated before we vote is this: the noble Lord keeps insisting that he supports this clause and the system under which every motor car on the road over a certain age should have an annual test and certificate. If he supports that scheme and rejects the examination by private garages, how many officers would be required under his scheme? The question he was putting to me is about another alternative scheme.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, that is a perfectly fair question. I have not worked it out. What I suggested to the Minister in charge of the Bill is that if he would have a testing scheme with the Ministry's certifying officers running spot checks, as they do now under the provisions of the various enactments I enumerated in my opening speech, plus static stations in the areas of the municipalities and mobile squads of testers; if he would work that out and come to Parliament with a cut-and-dried scheme, en if he could prove to me and to those who think like me that the thing could not be done, I should be in perfect agreement. But this scheme has never been worked out. This is not a clean-cut balance, but a choice between shades of grey on either side. I maintain that it is a principle which the noble Lord himself never instituted when he was a Member of the Government.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

My Lords, this clause was introduced and accepted in principle in another place. It was introduced at the instigation of Mr. Strauss, a previous Minister of Transport. He thoroughly accepts, I understand, as did another place, the principle of the clause, although they considered that more examination should be done by public inspection than by private garages. The clause was accepted, and is accepted, in principle. The noble Lord has been saying continually that he accepts this clause, but the scheme put forward, attractive though it is, and based on great experience, is not an acceptance of the clause. It is an entirely different procedure.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I do not agree with that. I accept that the scheme in principle is right, but with the exception that the Opposition in another place divided against the same provision I am asking your Lordships to oppose. That is my case. May I have this final word? I do not want it to go out that I am against testing. I am as keen as the noble Lord. What the Government should do is to accept this Amendment and try out the scheme, because they are going come up against all the difficulties. I give the noble Earl this warning: when the Government bring forward the statutory instrument to lay down not only the test but the regulations that will apply to garages in this country under this scheme, they will run into one of the greatest difficulties they have ever run into. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has not had one reply. I feel sorry for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The Minister contradicts himself, and every Government spokesman has contradicted himself on this point ever since this Bill was introduced in another place. So I am going to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The next Amendment is a small Amendment extending the number of local authorities who can carry out tests on motor cars if they are designated by the Minister. It extends it to include metropolitan boroughs and non-county boroughs in England and Wales. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("council") to ("large") in line 1 on page 2, and insert ("designated by the Minister for the purposes of this section, being the council of a county, of a borough, or of a").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("1947)") to end of line 3.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

It is not a wrecking Amendment, but one which I think your Lordships would be well advised to adopt, to get away from, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, a principle that is new, that is not right, and will lead only to the undoing of the entire scheme.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—

Contents, 10; Not-contents, 50.

CONTENTS
Attlee, E.	Crook L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Howe, E.	Derwent, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Kershaw, L.	Sempill, L.
		Wise, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Margesson, V.	Gifford, L.
		Gridley, L.
Wellington, D.	Amulree, L.	Hampton, L.
	Barnby, L.	Hawke, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Birdwood, L.	Hore-Belisha, L.
Reading, M.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
	Cawley, L.	Jeffreys, L.
Bessborough, E.	Chesham, L.	Lloyd, L.
Ferrers, E.	Clitheroe, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Munster, E.	Conesford, L.	Mancroft, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Croft, L.	Merrivale, L.
Selkirk, E.	Cunliffe, L.	Moyne, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Dovercourt, L.	O'Hagan, L.
	Ebbisham, L.	Rea, L.
Barrington, V.	Elton, L.	Salter L.
Cilcennin, V.	Ennisdale, L.	Sandford, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]	Sinha, L.
Furness, V.	Geddes, L.	Webb-Johnson, L.
Goschen, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.23 p.m.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (9), to leave out all words after "instrument" and to insert: which shall not have effect unless approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament".

The noble Earl said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 9A deal with the same point. If these Amendments were carried they would require the Affirmative Resolution procedure to be applied to regulations issued by the Minister. They are designed so that if the Minister obtains his powers, the full details of the scheme contained in the regulations will be considered by Parliament before they come into effect. In reply to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, it was admitted that the Minister cannot say anything until he has the powers. If that is the case, surely, when the Minister has the powers and is in a position to reply to the points raised and to give details of the plan as a whole, we should have a chance to consider it. Regulations made by the Minister are difficult to "get at" unless they are brought before one House of Parliament or the other. Personally, I consider it is undesirable that the Minister should obtain powers to have compulsory vehicle inspection before such details have been considered.

A great deal has been said this after-neon about the testing of motor cars at Hendon. I was expecting that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would have been able to tell us what the motoring organisations did in order to find out what was going on at Hendon. They sent sixteen of their staff cars to Hendon to be tested. Two or three had never been on the road at all; they were exactly as they had come from the manufacturers. All had been maintained in 100 per cent. condition. All were faulted, with the exception of one, which was the oldest vehicle. That will give your Lordships an idea of what this testing business may involve. Another car sent up to Hendon for the test was faulted because it was said that it had a quarter of an inch toe-in. Your Lordships will, of course, know what is meant by that.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Would the noble Earl permit me for one moment? This is the second time the noble Earl has referred to this question of toe-in. That is not tested at Hendon, and therefore for the life of me I cannot see how it could be faulted on that account. The noble Earl also said that cars of 100 per cent. condition were faulted. The motoring organisations have good mechanics. Was it wrongly faulted or rightly faulted? If these things are going to be said I think we should be told. Even new cars can have small faults.

EARL HOWE

Two or three of them had never been on the road.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

They can still be faulty.

EARL HOWE

Perhaps the noble Earl would go round the motor trade and tell them that cars which have never been on the road can be faulted at testing stations. I submit that that answer gives one in a flash exactly the sort of test you are going to get at these stations—a pernickety test, and not related to the important features referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, and others: steering, brakes, and the like. Those are the things that really matter. If you are going to take new cars and fault them, I submit that your test is not going to do much good.

The owner of the vehicle which had been faulted with regard to the toe-in referred the matter to the agents, and he was told that that was the proper amount of toe-in for cars of this description. Therefore I cannot say that I am exactly enthusiastic about this testing business. I hope the Minister will be able to agree that there should be an Affirmative Resolution rather than a Negative Resolution. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 26 and insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I wish to press the Minister on this Amendment, and I want him to agree to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure right the way through this Bill. As the Minister has said, not one real detail has been worked out. The regulations that will be put before Parliament will be so involved and so comprehensive that I do not think the Negative Resolution procedure is the proper one. Parliament is hamstrung over this method. Our Parliamentary system, if I may be so bold as to criticise it, is bad on this particular point. That is why I pressed so hard on the first Amendment, and will continue to press, to have more detail put into the Bill, which is a hotch-potch of resolutions and legislation by reference and delegation. That applies right the way through the Bill. Instead of Clauses 1, 2 and 3, we might just as well have had one simple clause giving the Minister power to do anything he thinks proper to advance the cause of road safety. That need be the only one, because there is not one detail, indeed, there are not some of the principal points, worked out yet. And when we lime either the Affirmative or the Negative Resolution procedure, we can only throw out the lot; we cannot amend.

I do not know in what form these regulations will come to the House but I can imagine that they will be fairly lengthy. Therefore, if we do not agree with two or three and they are fundamental, we shall—I hope the noble Lord will not object to my saying this—have the pistol put to oar heads and be, told, "You cannot have those you do agree with unless you agree to accept these which you do not want, because you cannot amend them." That is also true—I will grant the Minister—on the Affirmative Resolution procedure. It is a great drawback in dealing with Bills of this kind. I shall make a suggestion to the noble Lord if the next Amendment on the Order Paper is proposed, but I am not dealing with the next Amendment for the moment; I am dealing with this one. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, through an interplay of cross-questions a minute ago with the Minister in charge of the Bill, has thrown up the great weakness of this Clause 1; because whether a car is roadworthy or whether it is not must, in the last analysis, be a matter of opinion.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked the Minister why a car passed as 100 per cent. roadworthy was turned down at Hendon. That is quite feasible, because it can be only a matter of opinion. But if the Minister is going to maintain that every car that has a punch mark on its card at Hendon is not roadworthy, he is maintaining something that neither I nor any other person of average intelligence would accept for one moment. What is going to be the standard? That point will have to be thoroughly threshed out when we have the Affirmative Resolution before us, because it must be as near as possible a standard that will fit the various 1,500 testing stations with which we are to be saddled in the future. The Affirmative Resolution procedure is not difficult to administer.

EARL HOWE

No.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I have the Minister's undivided attention for a minute, because this is a serious matter? There is no more administrative work in an Affirmative Resolution than in a Negative Resolution. I am going to ask him to give your Lordships an assurance that he will accept this Amendment and all other like Amendments throughout this Bill. I do not think I have missed one, but if there is one where the matter is of little importance and it is dealt with by Negative Resolution procedure, I am quite prepared to give way. But on this and like clauses where a vital principle is still to be debated, we should have the Affirmative Resolution procedure, so that the Government will have to table their proposals before your Lordships' House and they can be debated, instead of there being the Negative Resolution procedure of Prayer and annulment. We are up against a great difficulty in this House, as the noble Lord knows. I would not for one moment pretend to be an authority on procedure, but Prayers are practically unknown in this House, are they not?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

You can always put one down.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Can we? I think that any noble Lord who is an authority on this matter would tell your Lordships that it is almost unknown in this House. This is a case where we can act in a contrary fashion to another place, because it has to be a Resolution of both Houses. One can annul if another passes. When we have a Bill like this, in which, as I say, the policy has yet to be worked out, do you not think that the House is hamstrung by the Negative Resolution procedure? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, with perhaps a greater experience of this matter than I have, will be able to tell the House that this is more than just a passing thing. In my view, in a Bill like this, this is a most serious matter. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will accept this Amendment and the series of Amendments of like nature dealing with Affirmative Resolutions on matters of policy.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has brought us back from "toe-in" and other technical matters to the actual purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment and another Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would have the effect of making all regulations made by my right honourable friend the Minister under Clauses 1 and 2 subject to approval by an Affirmative Resolution of each House. As the clauses now stand, the only orders made by the Minister which will be so subject are those to be made under subsection (3) of Clause 2: that is the subsection under which the Minister may add to the number of vehicles to be tested by reducing the age, reckoned by the date of first registration of the vehicles coming within the scheme. All other regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.

As both noble Lords who have spoken stated—and it is perfectly clear by now to the House—the regulations to be made under the two clauses will be long and detailed and there will be at least three sets made at different times. I would not go the whole way with the noble Lord in the technical argument that he has just put forward, because, of course, it will be possible to debate all the regulations made, as they are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure; we can, of course, debate them. But that is a very different thing from requiring the positive approval of both Houses to each and every regulation made. The noble Lord then took me off, I must confess, into waters where I was a little beyond my depth. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I have never had the privilege of being a Member of another place where Prayers and annulments are mere common than they are here. But the last thing we want to do is to get into a confused state on procedural matters. Another place, equally, want to make certain that Parliament deals with the matter properly. Equally, we want to make certain that Parliament does not waste its time on a lot of fiddling minor points. I should have thought that what we were proposing at the moment was satisfactory and sufficient, but if the noble Earl would like me to have another look at it and discuss the whole tricky, constitutional point with the experts, I certainly will do so, because this is not a matter which we need rush categorically. We are at one in what we want to do. I hope I can carry the noble Earl with me when I say that we all want not to waste time on much unnecessary detail but to deal with the big matters properly.

Will the noble Earl allow me to take his Amendment back if I give him my word that we will look at this matter again in the light of what has been said to see whether we can meet his requirements? But I must not be held to be saying that the same promise applies to all the other similar suggestions made throughout the Bill—only to this specific Amendment No. 3A, which is the most important one. If, on the other hand, after investigation we find that we are giving adequate Parliamentary time, then we shall have to stand by what my noble friend Lord Elton calls "our guns." On that consideration, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will allow us to have, another look at this Amendment.

EARL HOWE

I should like to thank the noble Lord for his courteous and charming reply, to which I am happy to respond. I should like to fall in with his suggestion.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I, too, add my thanks? When discussing this matter with the experts, perhaps the noble Earl will take the opportunity to deal with this point. I say this with reservation, but I think. I am right in saying that any order subject to Negative Resolution procedure goes by default unless it is challenged by a Prayer:, and it cart be laid within certain Parliamentary times in the Recess. We all have notices of these matters. What I should like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to consider is whether this matter should not, be placed before the House in the same way as a statutory instrument, such as one dealing with whether there shall be a Lace Levy or not, a subject on which he is so eloquent. That is what I want. That has to be approved by the House. If he will take that into consideration, I shall be most grateful.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.42 p.m.

EARL HOWE

had given notice of an Amendment to omit Clause 1. The noble Earl said: I do not want subject your Lordships to more unnecessary debate on this question of vehicle-testing stations, but there are one or two things that I should like to say. I indicated to your Lordships in dealing with the last Amendment what happens at the testing station at Hendon. If such things happen there, the same sort of thing will happen all over the country at garages and establishments not nearly so well equipped. I hope your Lordships will remember that probably the greater percentage of cars affected by this Bill are cars that are perhaps third, fourth or fifth hand, and are owned by workers. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is not the time—or certainly not a good time—to place more difficulties in their way.

When speaking to the Amendment on garages, the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, said that he regarded this proposal as being one of the finest steps towards road safety that he had ever known. If it is as good as all that, why in the world, when he was responsible for these affairs, did he not come along with a similar proposal? I think I should have been a little more impressed with that particular argument if he had.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Happily, the world has not yet come to an end and everything cannot be done simultaneously. We did bring about tests for drivers and, basing myself on the success of that, I say that it was logical to do this and was at all times logical to do it. It was a question of practicability, and here is the scheme by which it can be done.

EARL HOWE

Then the noble Lord went on to say that we have no alternative. If the noble Lord had looked a little further down the list of Amendments he would have come to another proposal with which we shall deal in a few moments. However, I do not propose to divide the House on this particular Amendment. I still adhere entirely to the views that I have expressed. I think that this clause, bringing all garages into the scheme, is "half-baked". I do not think it has been thought out nearly enough; nor have we been told nearly enough about it. However, one can only hope for the best. I do not propose to divide the House on this particular Amendment—indeed I will not move it.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Obligatory test certificates

2.—(1) Any person who uses on a road or causes or permits to be so used a motor vehicle to which this section applies and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the last twelve months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

(2) The motor vehicles to which this section applies at any time are those first registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, or the Roads Act, 1920, not less than ten years before that time:

(3) The Minister may by order made by statutory instrument direct that the last foregoing subsection shall have effect with the substitution for ten years of such shorter period as may be specified in the order.

An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The Minister may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) of this section the use of vehicles for such purposes as may be prescribed.

(5) The Minister may by regulations provide that where application is made for a licence under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, for a vehicle to which this section applies, the licence shall not be granted except after production of a test certificate relating to the vehicle and issued within twelve months, or such shorter period as may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, before the date from which the licence is to be in force.

(6) In this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations of the Minister, and the power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

4.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is really a paving Amendment which should be taken along with Amendments Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 10. It is an Amendment to make it easier for test certificates to be obtained—that is to say that they may be obtained, as may be seen from the new subsection (8) in Amendment No. 10, a month before they are due, so that everybody does not necessarily come on the same day for a test certificate. Under Amendment No. 9, the Minister may set different periods in respect of different classes of vehicle, so that when the scheme is brought into operation there will not be a big rush on testing stations. Its effect will be to make the operation more convenient, and I hope your Lordships will agree.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, after ("road") insert ("at any time").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am sure it is due to my stupidity, but I cannot understand a word of this matter. So far as I can understand the noble Earl, he has said that this Amendment enables a testing certificate to be obtained at any time throughout the twelve months.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

No. May I clear that up? What it says is that a testing certificate may be obtained at any time within twelve months. One can go in a month before the year is up and take the certificate for the coming year.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Do I understand the noble Earl to say that a motorist goes in a month before his road licence expires and, if he has a testing certificate, get a road licence for the next twelve months? Surely, as I understand it, you can do that without these Amendments. The motorist can get a testing certificate at any time during the twelve months, but he must produce a test certificate in order to get an Excise licence. How will the Amendments prevent a rush for test certificates, let us say, a week before December 31? I do not see how they will, unless it is to be made compulsory. I am sorry, but I do not understand the purport of the Amendments. The procedure is that you must have a current test certificate when you go to obtain your Excise licence. If you obtain a test certificate on January 1, 1957 (if the Bill is in force by then), you can get a licence at any time up to December 31, 1957. But if you get a test certificate on January 3, 1957, you can get an Excise licence on January 1, 1958. So far as I have followed this matter, the test certificate is valid for twelve months. Now the term "twelve months" is to be taken out of the Bill, and the term "appropriate period" is to be inserted. I do not understand the purport of this. Is it that you can, or must, take out your test certificate within a month of getting your Excise licence, or what? I am sorry, but I am still at sea. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to tell me what it means.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I shall be glad to try. I understand that the noble Lord is not worried about Amendment No. 10, and the new subsection (9). He appreciates that that merely spreads the dates on which the scheme comes into operation, so that all types of cars do not have to obtain the test certificate on the same day. He is happy about that?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes. It is when the Bill comes into operation.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes. Paragraph (8) is purely a convenience for the motorist, and it says—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

What is the noble Earl referring to now?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am dealing now with Amendment No. 10, subsection (8), at page 4, line 22. The intention is that once a year all cars will he submitted to a test. In order to take the rigidity out of it, that test need not necessarily take place on the same precise date a year later. Supposing you took a test on January 1 one year, the next year you could take the test after December 1 following, and it would count as if it were January 1. In other words, the certificate will be valid for a year. It will not he necessary to take another test until the following January 1.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Does that rot mean that the test certificate will be valid for 13 months?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It does mean that for one year, but thereafter it will not mean that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This cannot be a continuing process: it could be every other year the motorist could do it. Really I do not see the use of it. I can see the sense on the appropriate date when this comes into operation, so that everybody is not getting into the rush to get a test certificate on a specific date, the date when the scheme comes into operation. But thereafter I cannot see why the period of 12 months is net left in. It is very simple.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I shall be very glad to discuss this with the noble Lord at any length, but I do not think he need worry about it. All the Amendment does is to take a certain rigidity out of the organisation. It means that if a motorist has a certificate on January 1 he can renew it during December, instead of on January 1. Frankly, it does not seem to be a very unusual procedure. I think it seems quite reasonable.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I notice that the noble Earl said he only "thinks" so. I wish he could tell me whether it is or not. Anyhow, I am perfectly willing to agree to the present Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, leave out line 30 and insert ("appropriate period before the said time").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), to omit the first paragraph and to insert: (2) The motor vehicles to which this section applies at any time are those which are the subject of a sale and which were first registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949 or the Roads Act, 1920, not less than three years before that time. In this section the expression 'sale' means any transfer of ownership for the purpose of using the vehicle on a road:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down because I and a number of others who agree with me consider that the scheme as it stands is likely to be hopelessly overloaded. We consider that the organisation does not exist, nor can it be brought into being at very short notice to cover the country. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister will be able to tell me why. But it is obviously bound to take time to set up the sort of elaborate organisation that must be set up, to acquire the special machinery for carrying out brake and light tests et cetera, up and down the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, in his remarks a little while ago, said that people like myself had no alternative to the scheme in the Bill. I am afraid that he had not looked at this Amendment and what it seeks to do. This Amendment seeks to apply vehicle inspection to cars on re-sale. I am sure that most people will agree that there is a great deal to be said for this principle. The second-hand cars are the ones that probably your Lordships notice most on the road, and often they are in a very poor condition. We think that, if the tests could be applied to these cars on their resale, not only would it be in the interests of road safety, in so far as the tests were thorough and effective, but it would also he not at all unpopular with people who are contemplating the possession or acquisition of a second-hand car.

I believe that this scheme could be made of real value, provided that the tests were really thorough; but there again, in spite of all the discussion on Second Reading, and again to-day, we have not had it indicated to us whether or not the tests are going to be really thorough. All we have been told is that the old cars are in very poor condition. I am sure that Lord Hore-Belisha would agree with us on this point. It would be a good thing if the tests were thorough. It is not much use having a test that is a sort of "half-baked" sham. It is better to have a good thorough test and be told that a vehicle is in proper condition. It is more than ever important in the case of secondhand cars, which may change hands more than once in one day, and which, very often, are in a poor state. Therefore I hope this Amendment may appeal to the Minister. I am not sanguine that he will be able to give me what I want, but I hope he will be able to indicate a little more clearly what is going to happen. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think the purpose of this Amendment is that, instead of having to submit the car to an annual inspection, it should be necessary to submit all cars of three years old or more to inspection when they change hands. This Amendment goes right to the root of the Bill, and we think it makes a situation which is much less reliable than that suggested by the Bill. After all, the sale of a car is spasmodic. It is not a routine matter in the life of a car: sometimes it is sold and sometimes it is not. I think it is sounder to put the test on a time basis. All mechanical machinery is inspected on either a mileage or a time basis; it is not inspected simply when it changes hands. The fact that it changes hands is no particular reason to suggest that that is the time when it is most necessary to inspect it. I think most people, when they buy cars, are fairly careful what they do.

The real difficulty which I see in this Amendment is that it rather puts itself forward as a protective measure for the purchaser, without, so far as I can see, any penalty attaching to the seller. The Amendment does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose that way. What I am particularly afraid of is what the noble Earl suggested in his remarks, that the buyer would come to regard this sort of test as a guarantee that the car was in good order. It is not intended to be a guarantee of that. All that it is intended to certify is that the car is not unroadworthy; I think that is the extent of what is intended. In that sense it is no real protection or guarantee to the purchaser, which the purchaser might think it to be. Nor do I know how the noble Earl suggests that it would be possible to enforce an arrangement of this character. How is one to know that the tests have been carried out when a car is sold? I suggest that annual inspection is simpler and more thorough.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am far more sympathetic than Lord Selkirk to this Amendment. As I read the Amendment, it would do away with the annual inspection as envisaged in Clause 1. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, I think, is trying to get at the seat of the trouble. I understand that 1,500,000 cars change hands in the course of 12 months—that has been the approximate figure in the past; in another two or three months, it will be 2,500,000. What the noble Earl, Lord Howe, says is that it would be far better to abandon the proposals in Clause 1 and to reply upon this on re-sale and the spot check in Clause 3. As I read this Amendment, that is what the noble Earl wants to do. I think the Amendment has virtue, in this respect—and perhaps I may give the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a little of my own experience. Ninety-nine per cent. of people get rid of a motor car to buy a new one just before they have got to spend money on it to put it in good order. That is the main source of the unsafe motor cars that go upon the road. Go right down the piece, and you find that some of the most dangerous cars, cars that never should be allowed en the road, are those that are taken in part exchange, one after the other, until the last remnant of the transaction is sold to a car breaker to break it up, and he, perhaps, sells it for £25 to anyone who wants a car to run about in and has not the necessary money to buy a decent one.

The noble Earl wants to ensure that no second-hand motor car shall be sold unless it has a certificate. I can quite see the difficulty: what penalty is to be imposed, under the Amendment, upon the seller of a second-hand motor car who has not provided the necessary test certificate? I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wants to put the onus of having a test certificate upon the seller or upon the buyer—I take it that he rather wants to put it on the seller. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asks: "How are you going to see that a certificate is issued?" With his scheme, when a man goes to renew his Excise licence he has then to produce a test certificate. I suggest that there is no great difficulty there. I put it to the noble Earl that he should consider this idea. As we know, immediately a second-hand car is sold the new owner's name has to be entered upon the registration book. In other words, change of ownership has to be registered.

I think that if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will accept Lord Howe's proposal to alter the regulations so that no registration book would have registered in it a change of ownership of any motor car falling within this clause where a test certificate was not produced, the difficulty would be overcome. That would be precisely the same as requiring the constant owner of a car to get a test certificate before renewing his Excise licence. It would mean that a test certificate must be produced, whether by the seller or the buyer. There is far more virtue in this Amendment than I think perhaps the noble Earl's advisers have seen at first sight. If the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not accept it out of hand, I would ask him to at least give the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the assurance that he will seriously consider this and the suggestion which I have made to make it effective.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has one other virtue in this Amendment which perhaps he did not see—at least, if he did see it, he did not mention it. This will ensure the testing of 1,500,000 motor cars, some of them more than once a year—Which is what I should like to see. Also it will do away with the congestion at the testing stations, wherever they are, in the noble Earl's Utopia in which there will be no unroadworthy cars on the road. No doubt the vendor of the second-hand car will have a testing station, so he will be able to do this testing in his spare time, and he can issue a certificate. I can assure your Lordships, knowing the motor car trade as I do, that if this is adopted there will be a test certificate attached to every second-hand motor car sold—which is precisely what the Government want. As I say, there is 'far more virtue in this Amendment than is apparent on reading it, because it does strike at the very heart of the system by which dangerous motor cars came on the road. Motorists, as I say, always think about buying a new motor car, or buying a better car, when they have reached the stage of having to spend money on the car which they have in order to make, it roadworthy. So I think that if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, sees fit he should ask Lord Howe to withdraw his Amendment and give him an undertaking that he will seriously consider this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.

5.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not quite follow the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has in mind. We heard words used earlier to the effect that there would be an unbearable strain on those who have to carry out these tests. I do not think that the strain is very great if it is merely a case of testing in order to give a test certificate. If, however, the sale of a car depends on the result of the test, then you will be likely to get an unbearable strain—something which will have possibly undesirable reactions. Frankly, when there is a question of money passing, as there would be in such cases, I am against the Amendment. I think that here is the one time when tests should not be obligatory. If anyone wants a test, the buyer is quite at liberty to carry out his own test. I think we should be running straight into trouble if we accepted this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that we have Clause 7, which I call Lord Howe's Amendment, and which substantially covers this point.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so, he is quite wrong: he has just "hatched up" a debating point against this Amendment. What is to prevent anyone in the motor trade, on the day that this Bill becomes law, from offering all second-hand motor cars with a test certificate? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it, and if they have any sense that is what they will do. How can the noble Earl say that there is a lot of "jiggery-pokery" in it? The noble Earl is making accusations without any foundation whatsoever. I do not know what he is going to do, but I suggest that if he is serious, if he wants efficient testing, and he is not satisfied by saving his face by getting Clause 1 through the Committee, he should consider this Amendment. It would not cause any congestion. Second-hand cars are sold throughout the year more or less evenly. Apart from a "peak" period about July, there is no rush period. If Lord Howe's scheme comes to fruition, the establishment of every reputable second-hand car seller who has a repair shop will become an official testing station. He can do this testing in his own time. There will be no question of the work piling up. I think that this is one of the most sensible Amendments I have seen.

EARL HOWE

I have listened to what has been said, and I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to go so far as to consider this Amendment. I have discussed it with numbers of people in the trade, and in nearly every case they consider that it might be of the greatest possible value to secure what we all want: a better standard of maintenance of cars on the road. I cannot help feeling that it would have been better to have gone into this question a little and considered it, but if the noble Earl is adamant, probably there is nothing I can say that will move him. I wish that he would consider it a little more, because I am certain that this could have been made really useful for achieving what we all want. I do not want to divide the House on this small point, but I am certain that the Amendment would do a great deal of good.

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to remind the noble Earl that the motoring organisations already carry out examinations of this kind for members who wish to buy cars, for which service a small fee is charged. I should have thought that this could have been extended and I would ask the Minister to think about it again.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The type of examination which the motoring organisations do is of a very different sort. I understand that it is in the nature of a guarantee, and we are anxious not to make any sort of guarantee. We think that that would be quite misleading. All that the certificate is to say is that the car is not unroadworthy. The danger is that buyers will take it as a guarantee. I presume that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is interested only in the sale and not in a continual annual licence after the first sale when the car is three years old. I am afraid that this would give the impression of a guarantee, if the motoring organisations give something of that character.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Is the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, going to give this matter further consideration? I cannot agree with him that it would be interpreted as a guarantee, any more than the ordinary test certificate is interpreted as a guarantee. It purports to say only that on the day before the sale or on the day of the sale the car had a certificate and that the brakes and steering conformed to Statute. But it guarantees the noble Earl one thing that he has been asking for repeatedly but which he now throws away. Here he has a chance of having more than a million cars certified as roadworthy without any organisation at all, and the noble Earl is not even going to consider it. Surely that is entirely wrong.

LORD DERWENT

I fail to understand the noble Earl's reply. When cars over ten years old change hands, they must have a certificate or they will not be saleable. All that this Amendment would do is to tighten that up by saying that cars that are three years old will not be saleable if they do not have a certificate.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That is not correct. You can sell a car perfectly well without a certificate. What you will not be able to do is to get an Excise licence. Frankly, I do not like the idea of identifying the certificate with the sale of the car. It is dangerous. There is no real guarantee. I have emphasised from the beginning that it is a minimum test, and this might well mislead buyers into thinking that it has some valuable guarantee behind it. But certainly I shall be happy to look at the matter again.

EARL HOWE

I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment enables the Minister to exclude certain districts from the general imposition of the scheme. It would apply to districts like the extreme north of Scotland, where it may be difficult to bring the scheme into operation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, at end insert "(5) The Minister may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) of this section the use of vehicles in any such area as may be prescribed."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I take it that where the Government find the scheme unworkable, such as in the north of Scotland, the Hebrides and Shetland, they will seek the permission of Parliament to make an order excluding these areas by the Negative Resolution procedure. Here, again, I think it should be an Affirmative Resolution. I think that in time the noble Earl will be forced to adopt my suggestion of experimental areas and to cut out a substantial number of districts. I think he might have to cut out Cornwall and mid-Wales, where people may have to go fifty miles to have their cars tested.

I do not suppose that the noble Earl will be able to tell me what happens about a car from a non-test area that goes into a test area. Suppose I live in an area where it is not necessary for me to have a certificate and the address in my registration bock is in an area taken out of the scope of the Bill. I go and stay for a considerable time in an area where there is testing. They cannot touch me, because I am registered in an exempt area. What is the noble Earl going to do? Surely we shall have to know something about that when the regulation comes before us. For what express purpose is this subsection being inserted? Is it because the Government know that in certain areas this scheme is unworkable, or is it because they want powers to carry out an experiment excluding every area, except, shall I say, the county of Yorkshire—I know that that would please the noble Lord, Lord Dement. If this is going to be a permanent thing, the licensing authorities in exempt areas would do a rearing trade in licences. I do not mind agreeing to this proposal if there has to be an Affirmative Resolution, so that the noble Earl has to produce to your Lordships' House a regulation saying what areas are to be exempt and why. These are substantial matters which have not been given any thought by the Government.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If I may say so, I think the noble Lord is making rather heavy weather of this matter. There are certain islands on the outskirts of this country, such as North Uist, where it would be ridiculous to set up a testing station. It is that sort of place that it is proposed to exempt. Exempting the Island of North Uist, or the island of Yell in the Shetlands, is not really a matter which requires an Affirmative Resolution. We said that we would examine what the noble Lord wanted, and we will look at it, in those circumstances.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful. It would satisfy me if the noble Earl came to your Lordships' House and gave an undertaking that the islands he has mentioned would be the only exempt areas.

EARL HOWE

Will not this Amendment give rise to some feeling of hardship? Supposing you are living a mile or so outside the area which has been exempt, you have to go and get your certificate and pay whatever the charge might be for it; whereas the other man a mile or two away is in an exempt area and does not have to do it. Surely, that will give rise to hardship. Or is it going to apply merely to outlying islands in the Hebrides or the Shetlands?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is really the intention that it will apply to places like the Outer Hebrides. Any car which comes to the mainland will have to get a certificate, so I do not think there will be any hardship such as the noble Earl has envisaged. So far as we can see at the present time, it will apply only in the small outlying islands.

EARL HOWE

There is one other question I should like to ask the noble Earl. What happens in the case of a foreigner who comes over to this country?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think that cars not registered in this country would not be subjected to a test unless the owners were resident here for a certain period. However, I should like to give the noble Earl a more considered reply when I have had time to examine that matter further.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.22 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "production of" and insert: either—

1. (a) the production of such evidence as may be prescribed of the granting of an effective test certificate or (if it is so prescribed) the production of such a certificate, or
2. (b) the making of such a declaration as may be prescribed that the vehicle is not intended to be used during the period for which the licence is to be in force except for a purpose prescribed under subsection (4), or in an area prescribed under subsection (5), of this section.

In paragraph (a) of this subsection the expression 'effective test certificate' means, in relation to an application for a licence for a vehicle,".

The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the manner in which a test certificate should be tied up with an Excise licence. We have brought forward the suggestion in this Amendment in order to give the motorist rather less to do when he renews his Excise licence. We are envisaging (I do not want to be definite as to what the arrangement will be) that he will not have to produce his test certificate when he gets his Excise licence, but will simply make a declaration. The idea of that is merely to make it easier and to avoid the bureaucratic method, or shall I say, the excessive complexity of producing a large number of documents at the same time with all the trouble thereby involved. In my view, this is a sensible proposal. I beg to move.

Amendment moved, Page 4, line 13, leave out ("production of") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I think we are going from bad to worse. We are told that the only sanction in the whole of this Bill is the requirement to produce a test certificate when the motorist renews his Excise licence. Nobody can force him to produce a test certificate at any other time, except at one point; and now, to whittle the thing down again, we are not going to have even that; all we are to have is a declaration by the motorist that he has a certificate. Does the noble Earl propose to de the same thing with a third party insurance certificate? Is there any greater hardship in having to produce a test certificate?

The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha (he is not in his place at the moment, and I quote him with care) has said that this scheme was going to save approximately 1,000 lives a year; or, at any rate, 1,000 serious accidents a year. Now, to make it easier, the motorist will not have to produce a test certificate, but can say: "Yes, I have got one, but I have left it at home"; and that will get him through. Why? If this scheme is worth doing, if this is going to be a serious endeavour to help in the reduction of accidents, let us treat it seriously. You can be fined £20 if you run a motor cat without a test certificate during the period of the licence. When you are summoned, what are you going to do? When you get your licence you can declare that you have got a certificate, but you have lost it, or something nonsensical like that. If we are serious in this matter, we have got to have some sanction. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I must say that I think there is no pleasing the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to-day; he obviously wants to make as much difficulty as he can. This Amendment simply facilitates the obtaining of an Excise licence. The noble Lord has said over and over again that this scheme is unworkable. There are two ways of linking it with the Excise licence, and one is to show the certificate to the Excise authority. At the present time you have to show your registration book, your cheque book, your old licence and your insurance certificate. Those are four things that you must show, and this would be a fifth. We came to the conclusion that it was making too much of it. That is simply what this Amendment amounts to. We feel that it would probably be enough if, when the application was forwarded, a declaration could be made that the car had undergone a test within the period of twelve months. I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not see why people should take advantage of it. These tests are not going to be so exhaustive as all that, and I see no reason why this should not be a quite reliable way of connecting the Excise licence with the test.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am sorry that the noble Earl objects to my exercising not only my right but my public duty to submit these proposals to a critical examination. That is what I am here for, and I shall continue to do it, however irksome it may be for the Government to find reasonable answers. Now we are going to have a statutory declaration.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am sorry, but I did not say that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Did you not?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I said "a declaration".

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

So there is to be another form. The applicant will have to sign it, I suppose. So the formality will be even more than producing a certificate, because he will have to sign a declaration that his car has undergone a test in the previous twelve months. That the Government now put forward as being less trouble than producing an Excise licence. I just do not believe it. No reasonable person would believe that that is simpler. And this is the only sanction there is in this Bill to force somebody to have his car tested—the one thing that, we were told, when we had the debate on Clause 1, was going to make such a wonderful contribution to the safety of the roads. I have a good rind to ask your Lordships to divide against this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

I hesitate to intervene on this matter, but I ask the noble Lord to consider carefully before he divides the House on a point of this kind. I know that his intention is to make the Bill as workable as possible. The effect of this Amendment is to provide flexibility from the point of view of the motorist. I want to put it to the noble Lord in the most practical way. The Minister desires to be able to call for either the production of the actual certificate, or the production of prescribed evidence of the granting of an effective test certificate; that is, a stamp or a statement in the registration book—the noble Lord will agree that that is a most sensible way of dealing with it—or else the inclusion in the application for an Excise licence of a statement that an effective test certificate has been obtained and the necessary details of it. This Amendment will give that result.

If the noble Lord will bear with me, may I give an experience of my own, in exactly this line, in my early day at the Bar? The noble Lord will remember, if he is not too young, that in 1926 the Government of the day imposed a tax on betting, and one of the requirements was that a bookmaker should produce an Excise licence, or evidence of having an Excise licence, at the request of the various inspectors. A client of mine was prosecuted for not producing his Excise licence. I looked carefully at the other document he had, and I saw a little twirl in the corner. I thought it was worth while, in the way that comes to one when one is an advocate, to ask the inspector what that twirl was. He said, "That is put on when there is an Excise licence" My client was immediately acquitted by the stipendiary magistrate. The noble Lord would be the first to say that it is common sense, if you can arrange for something to be put on the document which makes it perfectly clear that the necessary licence has been obtained—or, in this case, that the necessary test has been done—not to put someone to endless trouble merely because he has not the actual certificate. I put it to the noble Lord on the broadest ground. I put it to him on the statement of his own Party, issued the other day, as to the relationship between the individual and the modern State. I say that if a man can produce evidence that he has complied with the requirement of the Statute, then he should not be put to difficulty merely because he has not the actual certificate. If he produces clear evidence that the certificate has been granted, that is all we are seeking to do. What I suggest to the noble Lord is that he has a look at this matter between now and the Report stage, to see whether he will not co-operate from that angle of tempering the wind of necessity to the lamb who, if not shorn, has rather too much paper over him in place of wool.

LORD CHORLEY

Before the noble and learned Viscount resumes his seat, could he tell me whether a person who deliberately wrote in to the effect that he had such a certificate of test, although, in fact, one had never been issued to him, would he be guilty of any offence; and, if so, how could he be prosecuted, and what punishment could be meted out to him?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should not like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, offhand as to what offence would have been committed. The noble Lord knows that, apart from forgery, there are a number of offences of wrongfully using documents. I should like to look at that, and I shall be pleased to give him an answer later.

LORD CHORLEY

As the noble and learned Viscount indicated, we are dealing with a complicated piece of criminal law. It is perhaps unfortunate that this matter should be brought within a complicated section of law, when it might he better to clear it up by making this specifically an offence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Might I have a look at that point? I agree with the noble Lord that the class of offence which I have described is rather remote. I shall be glad to have a look at that point to see where we are.

LORD CHORLEY

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am not so much worried about the lamb, shorn or unshorn—I am worried about the black sheep. If the noble and learned Viscount is going to say, "Now, instead of having a test certificate we will have an endorsement on the registration book that a test has been gone through", I am perfectly satisfied. But if the Government are going to give way on the non-production of a test certificate to enable the motorist to get an Excise licence, why have they not given way on the production of an insurance certificate? I cannot understand the logic behind this. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, enumerated four documents that have to be produced, and said, "Of course, it is no trouble for you to produce four, but to produce the fifth is an unwarrantable intrusion upon the time of the individual."

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My argument is that of the camel's back and the straw.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

When does the straw break the camel's back? Suppose that I sign a declaration that my car has been tested when, in fact, it has not. Nobody is going to find out, unless I have an accident.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With great respect, by Clause 26 any police constable can ask for the test certificate.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But they do not. No public constable—unless it be a traffic policeman, or when I have been guilty of a breach of the law—has ever asked for my licence. If I can keep clear of the law by not exceeding the speed limit and not doing anything wrong, like thousands and thousands of motorists, then I have not to produce my test certificate. Why should I not be able to tell the policeman that I have not got my test certificate with me? I can tell an Excise authority that I have not got it and make a declaration—I do not have to produce it. I am not straining at gnats here. I am as anxious as the Lord Chancellor to make this thing work, but I want to make it work properly. If the test of vehicles means anything at all, it is going to rest upon the sanction that can be employed. You can drive a coach and horses through this provision. However, the noble and learned Viscount is going to look at it again, and with that I am perfectly satisfied.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I have had information on the point he raised. It is a summary offence, under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, and an indictable offence under the Perjury Act. But I will have a look at it again. I thought he would be glad to have that information so that we can check it.

LORD CHORLEY

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I referred to this Amendment earlier: it is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, leave out from ("within") to ("before") in line 16 and insert ("the appropriate period").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 17, at end insert— ("(6) In this section the expression 'appropriate period' means a period of twelve months or such short period as may be prescribed.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is art Amendment that I have already discussed with the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 22, at end insert— (8) Where within the appropriate period after the issue of a test certificate, but not earlier than one month before the end of that period, a further test certificate is issued as respects the same vehicle, the further certificate shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if issued at the end of the said appropriate period. (9) For the purpose of spreading the work of issuing certificates in contemplation of the coming into operation of this section or of a change in the length of the appropriate period—

1. (a) the order appointing a day for the coming into operation of this section may appoint different days as respects vehicles registered as mentioned in subsection t2) of this section at different times;
2. (b) the regulations changing the length of the appropriate period may be made so as to come into operation on different days as respects vehicles first registered under either of the enactments mentioned in the said subsection (2) at different times."

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Testing of condition of vehicles on roads

(3) On the examiner proceeding to test a vehicle under this section, the driver may elect that the test shall be deferred to a time, and carried out at a place fixed in accordance wilt the First Schedule to this Act, and the provisions of that Schedule shall apply accordingly: Provided that where it appears to a police constable that, by reason of an accident having occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road, it is requisite that a test should be carried out forthwith, he may require it to be so carried out and, if he is not to carry it out himself, may require that the vehicle shall not be taken away until the teat has been carried out.

5.40 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved after subsection (1), to insert: (2) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the examination of vehicles under this section and for the issue, where it is found on such an examination that the said requirements are complied with, of a certificate (herein referred to as a 'test certificate') that at the date of the examination the requirements were complied with in relation to the vehicle. (3) For the purposes of section two of this Act a test certificate shall mean a test certificate issued under this section or a test certificate issued under section one of this Act.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment attempts to correct a serious omission from the Bill. In Clause 1 the test has been staled to be a simple test. It has been stated by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill this afternoon, and was also stated by the Minister in another place, that the test in Clause 1, which carries with it the grant of a test certificate required under Clause 2, is a simple test, involving only that the brakes, the steering and the lights come up to a certain standard. Clause 3 deals with the other type of check, the spot check. The spot check is carried out by legislation and the Construction and Use Regulations. I want to ask the noble Lord—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has now taken command—whether he will explain this to me. The test under a spot check is a different test from that in Clause 1. It is a test that has a lot of other trimmings to it, because it comes under the Construction and Use Regulations No. 106, 1955. Why? That is the first thing I want to ask the noble Lord.

Secondly, as the Bill stands, you can go through with flying colours and a 100 per cent. pass with your car, yet on a spot check you do not get a certificate. Why not? The test is more exacting What is a spot check for? What is a certificate for? The great virtue of the spot check is that you may have to go through it half-a-dozen times in the course of the year if you are unlucky, unless you choose your route carefully. But that is what we want. We have always argued that to have one simple test of a vehicle once every twelve months, to see whether the brakes, the steering and the lights are in satisfactory state, is not worth very much, because they can be all right on the day they are tested and be all wrong on the day after; and they can remain all wrong for eleven months and thirty days until you want to get your Excise licence, when you have to go through the test again. But the spot check is far more exacting. You never know when you might run into it. There is no immunity. You have to go through a spot check if the examiner so desires. You cannot say to him "But I went through a spot check a week ago." You go through another. You can keep on doing this and your vehicle can be 100 per cent., and yet no certificate is issued Why? That is my second question.

My third question is this. What happens if you have gone through a check in a station and have your certificate? Is it intended that that should carry immunity for eleven months through any spot check? I assume that it is not, but the Bill does not make that clear. If I am right, I am in complete agreement with that. I have put down this Amendment to see that the test for a motor car or any vehicle designated in this Bill is the same whether the test is at a testing station or is a spot check. But now it is not, because a spot check is carried out, as I have said, under the Construction and Use Regulations, which set up a different standard. Why? My Amendment provides that The Minister may by regulations make provision for the examination of vehicles under this section"— that is, Section 3; that is the spot check— and for the issue, where it is found on such an examination that the said requirements are complied with, of a certificate (herein referred to as a 'test certificate') that at the date of the examination the requirements were complied with in relation to the vehicle. (3) For the purposes of section two of this Act a test certificate shall mean a test certificate issued under this section or a test certificate issued under section one of this Act. I beg to move the Amendment. I hope it can be accepted. It is very simple and, to me, completely logical.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 32, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

5.46 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

I do not think that as much really separates the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and myself as is on the surface apparent, because we are both trying to get at the same thing. The difficulty is that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is trying to equate too closely the yearly test and the spot test. But they are not really comparable in anything like such close degree as he is trying to bring to beat in his Amendment. Of course, they both have the same one object—road safety—but from a different point of view What the noble Lord's Amendment doe: is two things, and I am not quite clear whether he regards them as necessarily going together. The first is to ensure that a vehicle stopped for a roadside spot check will receive a certificate if it satisfactorily goes through its test. The second is to provide that whatever certificate ma; be given will rank as a test certificate under Clause 2—that is, the obligatory test certificate. These two things taken together amount really to a proposal of the noble Lord's part that the spot check system should be co-ordinated with the vehicle testing system to be set up under Clauses 1 and 2. I imagine that the noble Lord would not attach much value to the first of the two points I have just mentioned without the second of them being also provided for. Incidentally, there it one point the noble Lord raised. If he is worried about the risk that someone may be caught two or three times on the same road by a policeman not knowing that the car has just been through a spot check, we can get over that difficulty by providing a piece of paper saying that his vehicle has just been spot checked.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I do not want to get over the difficulty.

LORD MANCROFT

If the noble Lord is happy at being caught two or three times on certain stretches of road, I am happy that he has come as a lamb to the slaughter. If he wants to go further than that, as I see he does, then I am afraid that we shall differ slightly from him. A certificate that the test on the roads has been passed satisfactorily, if unrelated to the system of regular vehicle testing which we are setting up under Clauses 1 and 2, will not be of much value to the motorist and would impose additional work on the police, who may, in some cases, wish to test a car for one or two of the items for which cars can be tested under Clause 3 without having to test it for all of them. That is where I think we differ. The policeman may want to say, "Is something wrong with your lights?" and have a test for lights and not wish or have time to carry out the entire test. The noble Lord referred to the question of immunity. I quite agree with him: I do not think it will give a vehicle immunity, because, supposing you pass your test with flying colours at the most rigorous establishment on one day, you have no knowledge that one of your headlights has not been accidentally knocked out of alignment on the second day. No immunity can be given for that. It is merely a suggestion that you are a more careful motorist than the next one; but no immunity is given.

The proposal that the roadside test should be related to the system of regular vehicle testing under Clauses 1 and 2, so that the motorist who had passed the spot check test should receive a certificate which should rank as a test certificate for the purposes of Clause 2, is one which we cannot accept. In point of fact, with the emphasis so strongly on periodic vehicle testing, the use to be made of the spot check powers in Clause 3 is most unlikely to be such as to subject the motorist to any risk of repeat spot checks. What strikes me as being the obvious objection to it is that a roadside examination such as we envisage in connection with a spot check cannot, in the, nature of things, be anything like as thorough as a test in an authorised testing station using approved equipment. I see that the noble Lord disagrees. But obviously there will he no equipment or facilities at the roadside for an inspection underneath the vehicle. In the second place, the provisions in regard to vehicle testing under Clause I are so, drawn that the Minister can prescribe what are to be the matters which are to be the subject of the regular system of vehicle testing under Clauses 1 and 2, whereas under Clause 3, which we are now discussing, the matters which are to be the subject of a spot check on the roads are limited, as the noble Lord has suggested, to the statutory requirements as to brakes, silencers, steering gear, tyres, lighting equipment and reflectors, which are mentioned in that clause, so that what is covered by the two examinations may well be different.

Where I think the Amendment of the noble Lord is misconceived is that it does not take into account the essential difference between the underlying system of vehicle testing under Clauses 1 and 2 and that of the system of spot checking vehicles on the roads. That is where he and I part company. The proposals for compulsory period vehicle testing have been designed to ensure that vehicles coming within the prescribed clauses for tests will at least once a year be subjected to a limited test of roadworthiness; the spot check provisions entrust the police and Ministry examiners will: the power to apply the roadside spot check to vehicles selected haphazardly on the road, and the primary purpose of the spot check—this is the important part about it—is really psychological: it is to act as a reminder to motorists generally of their obligations under the law to maintain their vehicles in a roadworthy condition.

The two procedures are not in any way comparable, and I am sure that only confusion could arise if some kind of equality of status such as the noble Lord suggests were to be granted to certificates issued by testing stations in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1 and certificates issued as a result of spot checks carried out under the provisions of Clause 3. The spot checks have quire a different purpose aid approach and will achieve quite a different result. I am sure that to try to equate them together and to give them the same weight as the noble Lord seeks to do would defeat its own ends. I appreciate what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind, but I hope that he will now reconsider the point in the light of the explanation I have sought to give him that there is a fundamental difference in the function and nature of these two checks.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Well, I really think that we are going from farce to farce. Everything that the noble Lord has said is to-day covered by the Construction and Use Regulations. There is no necessity for this clause at all. Under Construction and Use Regulation No. 106 the police or any authorised examiner appointed by the Ministry of Transport can stop any vehicle to test it in the way that the noble Lord has said. Why have it in this Bill, if it is not for the purpose of its being co-ordinated with the system of checking which is necessary to obtain an excise licence? The noble Lord must look at this from the point of view that the two things must be co-ordinated; otherwise, what is the use of having spot checks at all? Why clutter up this Bill with Clause 3? You have all the powers you want now. The only reason for putting this clause into the Bill is that if a person gets through a test satisfactorily, he gets a certificate for so doing. That is the only reason. The noble Lord said that after you have been through a test the police may want to stop you and test only one thing—perhaps your lights, which may be wrong. But precisely the same thing happens with a vehicle that has gone through a spot check. Perhaps a vehicle may go through a spot check at four o'clock in the afternoon, and if lighting up time is half past four and its headlamp bulbs go out, the police can stop the car whether or not it has a test certificate. I am quite mystified. What is the good of bringing in this clause at all?

We are now right back to the point that the only check there is going to be in regard to safety on the roads, carrying the safeguard of a certificate of roadworthiness, is that carried out through a station. The Minister or the Government do not intend that a spot check shall carry any more weight in the future than it has done in the past. I am sure that that is not the wish of noble Lords who have studied this problem. The noble Lord spoke about equipment. If you cannot test brakes and lighting by a spot check, why have you cluttered up the Statute Book for twenty years with regulations which enable you to do it? The noble Lord said that on the roadside there would not be the equipment which is available in a station.

LORD MANCROFT

I am sorry, but I did not say that; I said merely that the police would not have an examination pit so that they could look under a vehicle. They could perfectly well test the brakes if they wished to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But you can test the brakes, the steering and the lighting without getting underneath the vehicle.

LORD MANCROFT

Certainly you can.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Then why say that they will not have the equipment to do it on the road? They do not want the equipment. You can carry sufficient equipment about with you, in your hands, to test the lights of a vehicle—a beam tester. You do not want a brake machine to test brakes. Do you know how it is done in America? We are used to being told what they do in America. In California, where the spot check system is the only system, it is all done in about ten minutes. The examiner carries a little wedge in his pocket with a spring attached to it. He puts it underneath the brake pedal and says "Will you press the pedal down and this instrument will satisfactorily, according to our standards, tell you whether your brakes are in a sufficiently roadworthy condition for me to let you go on." Who do you think is going to put in £200 or £300 worth of brake-testing equipment when, as I have already pointed out, it is completely unnecessary? The best motor car manufacturers in the world scorn them.

What am I to do? I cannot let this matter go as it is. We are now told that the spot check system on the roads of this country is going to play no greater part in the future in the testing of vehicles than it has played in the past. Now where are we? I should like to know whether or not that is the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, or of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I am sure every organisation in this country was of the opinion that the spot check system was going to be linked up with the other system so that there was an alternative. But no, it is not, For the life of me, I cannot understand why you are going to the trouble of having spot checks on the road for three simple things, and when a car conies through with flying colours you do not give it a certificate.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has been trying to impress me with the fact that the one desire of the Government is not to put the motorist to any inconvenience—he need not have a declaration to get an excise licence and he need not have a test certificate. If he can be stopped on the road he can prove his vehicle to be just as roadworthy as the next man who takes his vehicle to a station, but he cannot get a test certificate. I am afraid I do not agree with that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "(3) On the examiner proceeding to test a vehicle under this section," and to insert: (3) A vehicle shall not he detained for the purpose of a test under subsection (1) of this section where the driver can show that this would cause unreasonable hardship, and in such circumstances.

The noble Lord said: As the Bill is drafted, under this subsection the driver may elect that the test shall be deferred to a time and carried out at a place fixed

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. Would he not agree that it might be more difficult with a spot check to carry out an examination in regard to the safety of the steering? I think that would be much more difficult under a spot check than under a station test.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILLLWORTH

That has been in the Construction and Use Regulations for years and years. The vehicle examiners of the Ministry have had to do this all these years past. They have never had the car over a pit. Any good mechanic can test the steering and the brakes without having the car over a pit. Surely have been under a complete misapprehension all the time when I thought that the spot check was going to be linked with the other check as a contribution to road safety.

On Question, Whether the said subsections be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—

Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Listowel, E.	Crook, L. [Teller.]	Lucas of Chilivorth, L
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Elton, L.	Moyne, L.
	Kershaw, L.	Sempill, L.
Chorley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. [L. Chancellor.]	De L'Isle, V.	Goddard, L.
	Margesson, V.	Hampton, L.
Cholmondley, M.		Hawke, L.
	Amulree. L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Howe, E.	Barnby, L.	Jeffreys, L.
Morley, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Lloyd, L.
Munster, E.	Chesham, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Clitheroe, L.	Mancroft, L.
Selkirk, E.	Conesford, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Dovercourt, L.	Rea, L.
	Ebbisham, L.	Sandford, L.
Barrington, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]	Sinha, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Gifford, L.	Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

in accordance with the First Schedule to the Bill. I think that that is too loose. Everybody whose vehicle is faulty and who knows it to be faulty will plead that he has either to catch a train or his grandmother is ill, or some excuse like that. I do not want to put hardship on the motorist, but I do want someone to be satisfied that the reason for the deferment of the test is genuine, so I thought that the best thing to do was to put in this proviso: A vehicle shall not be detained for the purpose of a test under subsection (1) of this section where the driver can show that this would cause unreasonable hardship.… I think that that is better and is a little tighter without causing any hardship or inconvenience for the driver of the vehicle. I think the noble Earl will agree that at the present time everyone can say that it is inconvenient to be detained for a test. I do not mind if it is inconvenient. I want the driver concerned to satisfy either the police or the examiner that it would be a genuine hardship. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 1, leave out ("(3) On the examiner proceeding to test a vehicle under this section,") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD MANCROFT

There is not a great deal in this point, I think. I appreciate what the noble Lord wants to do, and we do not want to stand in the way unfairly of a man who would genuinely suffer hardship if held up—he might be wanting to catch a boat, or he might be a barrister or a doctor with special reasons for urgency; he might be a person with a sick relation whose side he is anxious to reach. The difficulty is how to decide the question of hardship. What we feel with regard to the noble Lord's suggestion is that it would be an unfair burden to put upon the examiner to saddle him with the responsibility of judging the merits and the genuineness of the excuse which is put forward. I suspect that the noble Lord may be right and that many people will think of an excuse for wanting to get away. What we want to do is to catch the man who, if not held at once, is liable to do damage or has done damage. That is why we have put down Amendment No. 13. That Amendment will get at the motorist from the other point of view. As the clause stands, a police constable can compel a motorist to stop and no excuse will be accepted where it appears to the police constable that an accident has occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on the road and an inspection should be carried out at once. No excuses will be accepted concerning sick aunts or anything of that sort. Nothing will get him out of it, now that we have Amendment No. 13. It will be possible for a police constable to decide that a vehicle ought not to be allowed to proceed without the immediate carrying out of a test. That is provided for by Amendment No. 13.

We feel that these two provisions are tight enough to catch the man we want to catch. We may let a few people through who have a bogus sick aunt, but we are going to catch the others whom we really want under these two headings. No very great harm will be done, if one or two in the first category do get through. On the other hand, if we put upon the examiner the burden of deciding whether a sick aunt is bogus or genuine, unpleasantness will undoubtedly occur. I do not think that as we have now arranged the net anyone will get through it who really ought to be held on the road for an immediate check. I agree that there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. But I think that if he looks at Amendment No. 13, which was put on the Marshalled List after his Amendment appeared, he will agree that we have arranged to catch and retain for an immediate check the two kinds of people whom we really want to get.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I see the noble Lord's point as it relates to a vehicle which is so defective that it should not be allowed to proceed. But there, again, in my opinion, you are going to cause hardship. After your Lordships' decision upon the last Amendment frankly my opinion regarding the spot check is that I do not care much what you do with it now. It is a meaningless thing, so far as I can see. I thought that these spot checks were going to be intensified and multiplied. If they are not going to be carried out any more thoroughly in the future than they have been in the past, as a contribution to road safety they are just nil. If the noble Lord thinks it is all right, however, I am not disposed to disagree with him, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT moved to add to subsection (3): and (b) where in the opinion of a police constable the vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, he may require the test to be carried out forthwith.

The noble Lord said: I am rather fond of Amendment No. 13, but I need not say much more about it because I have already explained it. I want to set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, if not at rest at any rate in a less turbulent state with regard to spot checks. We put a great deal of faith in them, but we have tried not to make them the equal of tests under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. We attribute much value to the psychological effect on people of knowing that they are always under the risk of the spot check. We feel that it will affect them in the same way as people are affected who use the railways. Possibly many people pay their proper fares for using trains for fear lest an inspector will suddenly make an appearance. I have no knowledge of the number of inspectors engaged on that sort of work and I shall not forecast the number of police inspectors who will be engaged on spot checks. But it will not be a very large number. We want to concentrate manpower elsewhere. There will be such people there, however, and we think they will have great value.

May I come back to the Amendment? We are convinced of the value of this second check, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not seem to think much of. Under this Amendment where, in the opinion of a constable, a vehicle is apparently so defective that it ought not to be allowed to proceed without a test being carried out, the police will be able to refuse to allow deferment. That now gives us two reasons why the vehicle may not proceed. I will say no more as I have already talked about this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD REA

Without splitting hairs, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could explain a little further the last word in the Amendment "forthwith"? Does that mean that the constable accompanies the driver to the nearest garage, or is the driver entitled to say that he will go next week and have a test? Alternatively, does the constable—it may be at some spot on the top of Dartmoor—have to crawl under the car, test the brakes and then say, "Your brakes are in a frightful state. Carry on!"?

LORD MANCROFT

"Forthwith" means forthwith. The noble Lord cannot go charging cheerfully over Dartmoor and say, "I am going to have a check next week." This Amendment means immediate inspection by the constable who has held up the car.

LORD AMULREE

What would occur if the brakes were found defective on the top of Dartmoor? Would the constable make the man drive to a garage? I do not quite see what procedure could be followed if a car was found to be so wrong on a spot check that it was not safe to be on the road at all.

LORD MANCROFT

If it was so dangerous that, in the opinion of the officer, the vehicle ought not to proceed, a breakdown lorry would have to be called to tow it away. I only hope that nothing of the sort happens to the noble Lord on the top of Dartmoor.

LORD AMULREE

Is there provision made for that in the Bill? So far as I can see, it merely says that a cheek will be carried out. It does not say what will happen if the test reveals an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is fair to say that the normal immediate consequence is a prosecution, but I am bound to add that how the vehicle is to be got off the road is not provided for in detail in the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks it is really worth a statutory provision. I rather doubt it. I think it is the sort of thing which normally a police constable will be able to deal with fairly well on the spot.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before we part—in all thankfulness, on my part—with this clause, which, for all practical purposes, will go into the wastepaper basket, may I ask the noble Earl whether the motorist who goes through a spot check is to receive any piece of paper to say that he has been through one? If so, whit is the purpose of the piece of paper? The reason I ask is that one of the Ministers in another place said that he will have a piece of paper so that he shall not be stopped farther on. That was said rather hurriedly and I do net know whether it is correct or not. Am I right in assuming that there is no immunity from his being stopped again next day, or the day after that, or on any of the other 365 days of the year? Is the motorist given a chit to say what was wrong with his car and what he has to have done to it, or is he told verbally that his brakes are wrong, his steering wants to be seen to and his lights are filthy? Is there any obligation on him to report to anybody that these have been put right? Or does he just go through a test, shake the examiner and the policeman by the hand and say, "Goodbye"?

LORD MANCROFT

I think I can help the noble Lord here. This is a minor administrative point which I mentioned earlier and which the noble Lord brushed aside. If the police decide to have a day's work spot checking in the Abingdon area and do not want the noble Lord to go through a check at ten o'clock and then at twelve and again at one, they will give him some form of chit saying that he had passed that day a spot check. I should imagine that it would last no longer than a day. The noble Lord will realise that he might well have his lights accidently pushed out of alignment that night.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This is very important. How long does that last?

LORD MANCROFT

It is a small detail, but I think that more than a day would be wrong. I would say that it would last for that day, the purpose being to prevent the motorist from being irritatingly stopped two or three times during the day. Suppose the noble Lord has been stopped by the police and they find something faulty with the steering of his car, but not enough to detain him for immediate tow-away, they themselves will note that he is required to notify the police of Abingdon by a certain date that he has carried out what he was required to do. It is no good for the noble Lord to peer through the Bill. It will have to be done by administrative arrangement; but that is reasonable and can be carried out without much difficulty.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Cannot we have this amongst the various regulations?

LORD MANCROFT

It must be.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Then what happens if a vehicle has been found faulty, but not so faulty as to be dangerous, is to be regulated by the regulations brought forward under the Bill. I am much obliged.

EARL HOWE

What about the fees for spot checks?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There is no fee for a spot check. You do not give a policeman a fee for being stopped on the road.

EARL HOWE

But if you are told to go and have your vehicle tested, that is going to cost you something—or is that thrown in? Is that "on the house"?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

What will happen if your car is tested and found unsatisfactory is that you will be prosecuted: that is the first thing that will happen. You can say that you do not want to be tested and it will be deferred, but you will have to get it tested yourself and you will have to pay for it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

With great respect, the noble Earl is completely wrong. You are stopped by a policeman only because the law says that you cannot be stopped by anyone else but an officer in uniform. But the policeman does not carry out the test.

LORD MANCROFT

He can do.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

He carries out the test only under one section; otherwise the examiners who are there carry out the test. They are officials appointed under the section of the 1930 Act which authorises the Construction and Use Regulations. The only time a policeman stops you is when he can see that there is something wrong and he intends to prosecute, and then he carries out a test. Under the Construction and Use Regulations, the police can stop you and prosecute you for having a car on the road in a dangerous condition, but the tests we are envisaging now will be carried out by examiners who must be qualified. In 99 cases out of a 100 in the country districts a policeman would not know a steering wheel from a back axle; he has never ridden anything better than a bicycle. I am not talking about the skilled traffic police we have in London. So Ministry officials are there. This is not going to be self-supporting after all. Is the motorist going to be charged a fee by the Ministry of Transport for carrying out a check? There is no provision here, and I think the noble Earl Lord Howe, is right when he says that it is "on the house".

LORD MANCROFT

I cannot let the noble Lord get away with his statement that the police would not know a steering wheel from a back axle. I know he is speaking figuratively, but the police who by themselves will carry out these spot checks will be only those policemen technically competent to do so. Of course, the general rule will be that the police will work in conjunction with examiners, but the Bill does permit the police to carry out checks themselves. I can assure the noble Lord that only qualified policemen will do so. I can also promise the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the test necessary in the circumstances he envisages will not be "on the house".

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Road-safety information and road training 5.—

(2) A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection or for giving practical training to road users or any class or description of road users, and to make contributions towards the cost of arrangements for the like purposes made by other authorities or bodies; and the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make contributions towards the cost of any such arrangements as are mentioned in this subsection.

LORD SEMPILL moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise a local authority to provide or maintain or to contribute towards the expenses of providing or maintaining any establishment at which fees are paid by persons in respect of instruction designed to enable them to qualify to obtain licences to drive motor vehicles.

The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will have noted, I have drafted this Amendment to limit it to establishments concerned with teaching personnel to drive motor cars or heavy motor cars. In this teaching, as your Lordships well know, there are ample facilities already provided by private enterprise, and I suggest that it is quite unnecessary for the Ministry of Transport or for local authorities to use the taxpayers' or the ratepayers' money on setting up competitive training schools. The existing training schools are doing the job very well indeed. This Amendment would not interfere with any schemes which orgalisations like the Royal Automobile Club, in association with the Auto Cycle Union, operate to improve the standard of driving of motor cyclists; nor would it interfere with local authorities if they wished to start schools of driving for drivers of traction engines, invalid carriages or tractors. I suggest that the proposals in the Amendment should be particularly acceptable to the Government, because last week they included in the list of economies they intended to make a reduction in the administrative costs of the Ministry of Transport, in particular by an increase in the fees for driving tests. It is evident that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to have the whole business of teaching people to drive motor cars, and testing them in respect of their licences, placed on a self-supporting basis. My Amendment is designed to ensure that this shall be so in all respects. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Sempill.)

LORD WALERAN

Before my noble friend answers for the Government, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, if, as now drafted, the Amendment would stop the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents from getting money from local authorities when they have their little schools for children. The point is not at all clear.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I quite see the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill: he is anxious to prevent local authorities from making any contribution towards an establishment designed to give training in the driving of motor cars. This clause gives local authorities power to make such contribution for practical training of that character. This is designed primarily to assist pedal cyclists where it is not generally economic to give them proper training. I can say straight away that I know of no intention on the part of anycne—no municipality, local government, or the Government themselves—to open schools which are likely to compete with existing motor car driving schools. I cannot see the slightest likelihood of that happening. However, I should like to point out that, to some extent, local authorities can make a contribution, and a valuable contribution, to these schools. For instance, they can make space available to them to enable them to use it for training people to drive; and they can make skid pans available to them so that they can practise that art if they want to. I do not think there is any danger on the point raised by the noble Lord, and I can see no likelihood of there being any. At the same time, I consider it is so important that every encouragement should be given to local authorities to engage in practical training—including that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, of training school children—that I should hesitate to restrict it even by a proviso such as this. I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, would accept what I have said on this matter and not press the Amendment further.

LORD SEMPILL

First of all, in reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, I would say that there is no intention to restrict in the way that he suggests. I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that if he will allow me to consult with him between now and the Report stage perhaps something may be done in the way of finding a different set of words which would suit the particular point the noble Earl has envisaged. Would the noble Earl allow that?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Yes.

LORD SEMPILL

In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a small point which enables the London County Council, besides the metropolitan boroughs in London, to make contributions to road safety campaigns. At first, it was not thought necessary for the London County Council to do so, but on further examination it was felt desirable that they should be able to do it. This Amendment achieves that object. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 39, after the second ("county") insert ("or metropolitan").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

On behalf of the local authorities in the County of London, and particularly the London County Council, I should like to thank the Government for inserting this Amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for putting it to the Committee. I must say that I should have felt inclined to put it the other way round, and to say that this Amendment adds the metropolitan boroughs to councils in the County of London, whereas they were left out before. This adds them to the provisions in the clause. It has now been agreed between the metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council that the metropolitan boroughs should contribute to the cost of the road safety propaganda in the County of London, and that seems to be a perfectly satisfactory arrangement. But I think the noble Earl will agree that it might perhaps have been put the other way round with equal truth and accuracy.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Earl, but I am afraid I am right, in the sense that the metropolitan boroughs—

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

They are now included.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

They were in before. What this does is to allow the London County Council to precept on the metropolitan boroughs, who are the only places on which they can precept. But, in any case, we are in agreement, and I will not argue the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Amendment of s. 59 (1) of Act of 1930.

6.—(l) In paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section fifty-nine of the Act of 1930 as amended by section twenty-two of the Act of 1934 (which paragraph empowers the Minister by regulations to provide among other things for the removal from roads, and safe custody, of vehicles which have been allowed to remain at rest on a road so as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road or to appear to have been abandoned) after the word "custody" there shall be inserted the words "or for the moving from one position on a road to another position on that or another road", and for the words "or to" there shall be substituted the words "or as to cause obstruction to such persons or as to".

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (1): contravene any byelaw, regulation or statute prohibiting the waiting of a vehicle on a road provided adequate notice is given of such prohibition by means of traffic signs on the road in question or as to

The noble Lord said: This is an attempt of mine to help the Government to put some teeth into this Bill. This clause deals with the powers of the police to remove cars from places where they are causing obstruction. Soon your Lordships will deal with the question of parking places and parking meters, and I should think that the discussion will be just as interesting as that on Clause 1 of the Bill. When I was in America last winter I made such study of this as I could in the time at my disposal, and found that the one way the American police got over the obstruction caused by motor cars left by the side of the road was not so much by parking meters, but by what are known in America as "tow-away zones." If you leave your car in a spot where there is a notice that between such and such an hour it is a tow-away zone, you then have to collect your car from a certain address on the other side of the city, and you pay a good hefty sum, 50 per cent. as fine and 50 per cent. as reimbursement for the tow-away contractor. That is the way they get over the leaving of cars in no-waiting areas.

I thought that perhaps the Government would welcome the alteration of this clause to increase their powers in the way I seek to do by this Amendment, where a car or vehicle is left in such a way as to: contravene any byelaw, regulation or statute prohibiting the waiting of a vehicle on a road provided adequate notice is given of such prohibition by means of traffic signs on the road in question… In the provinces—not so much in London, since the police have taken such strong action on unilateral parking and waiting—I could mention quite a lot of towns where the "No Waiting" signs are exhibited and you find the kerbs chock-a-block with motor cars. The police seem to be powerless to take any action. That is the cause of congestion. The police, the local authority or the officials who put up these "No Waiting" signs do not put them up for fun; they put them there because there is congestion caused if vehicles are left there. I see no reason why, if you are going to tackle this question of congestion, you should not give the police powers to remove cars from areas which are clearly designated as "No Waiting" areas. That is the simple reason why I have put down this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD ELTON

Before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replies—I expect I am quite out of order, but I hope I am not—may I point out that we are now seeking to amend a clause which refers to two Acts that are not before us: it actually seeks to insert words in a section in the Act of 1934, which is not before us. The noble Lord's words are intended to follow on a sentence in an Act twenty-two years old which, as I say, is not before us to-day. I should like to register a brief passing protest against this habit of legislation by reference. I wish we could have the whole thing set out as it stands to-day, and not patchworked into something that is not there. It is bad enough to have the unintelligibility of so much of modern legislation. The modern legal draftsman has become licensed by prescription to use unintelligible phraseology.

It reminds one of the Indian who wanted to say that his mother was dead, and who said, "The hand that rocks the cradle has kicked the bucket." If, in addition to this jargon, we are to have perpetual references to Acts which are forgotten, it is really like piecing a jigsaw puzzle together in twilight with half a dozen pieces missing, and some of the others not fitting. By courtesy of the Printed Paper Office, I have a copy of the Act into which we are inserting something, but they asked me to return it as they had very few copies. I am sure it would not have been available for all your Lordships if you had wanted it. I do hope that one day we shall have an Act in the Queen's English and complete in itself. If I have been out of order, I apologise.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am glad to have the noble Lord's sympathy. The noble Lord ought to have two Acts—

LORD ELTON

I have.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

—because the Act of 1934 amends the Act of 1930. Believe me, it was a work of art. I do not know whether I have it right now, but I got as near as I could to it. If the noble Lord thinks that we are going to have an intelligible Road Traffic Act—we have been waiting now, to my knowledge, for twenty-five years to have the law brought up to date—I am afraid that I do not think we ever shall. It is absolutely hopeless to try to go from Act to Act, and from regulation to regulation. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, will not find fault with my drafting.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

This Amendment brings up an important matter and it ties up, as the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, with the question of parking meters. Any system of parking meters which is installed can be effective only if it is fully comprehensive in the area in which it is installed. If there are any places left in that area where cars will be able to park free, obviously the parking meter system will not make sense. If there are to be no areas with free parking in that area, the authorities must be able to remove the cars that are left where there are no parking meters. If they cannot be taken away by means of police breakdown vehicles, I do not see how this is going to be done. I think it brings up an important matter, and could do with a little study.

LORD MANCROFT

I must confess that I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this question of draftsmanship and legislation by reference, and the need for consolidation. I can assure him that we sympathise even more on this side of the House because we have to cope with the problem rather more than he does. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said he hoped he had not got his draftsmanship wrong. I am afraid he has. I cannot blame him for it, because it would require a master draftsman. I can tell him where it is wrong—a very subtle fault, indeed—a draftsman's dream. The Amendment which the noble Lord has drafted refers to by-laws, regulations or Statutes. In point of fact, the waiting prohibitions outside the London parking areas are imposed under Section 46 of the Act of 1930 by order—by none of the three things which he has put in. I will not quarrel with the noble Lord, because I think it would require a genius to spot that—and I need hardly say it was not I who spotted it. I can console him by telling him that I will willingly accept the principle of the Amendment if he will allow me to take it back and let the draftsman put it into the shape he wants.

The noble Lord will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I expressed myself strongly upon the need for giving the police powers to remove vehicles that were causing an obstruction or, I went on to say, "were likely to cause an obstruction." I said that because I had received strong recommendations from Mr. Delve, the chief of the London Fire Brigade, as to his concern about getting fire engines through the crowded streets of Soho. He reckoned that the time was coming—in fact, he said it had come—when there were streets that he just could not get a fire engine through. But your Lordships would not go as far as I wanted the House to go, and I took out the words, "likely to cause." However, the noble Lord's visit to America has encouraged him to take a stronger view. We are not going quite as far as "tow-away zones," but I must say that they have attractive features about them. I was talking recently to the Paris police, who move only about ten cars a day; but it has a salutary effect and puts the fear of goodness knows what into any motorist who is likely to have to go halfway across Paris in the rain to collect his vehicle for a large fee. Without going as far as that we are taking an important step here. If the noble Lord would allow me to have his Amendment redrafted, I should like to congratulate him on a 90 per cent. success.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thought that many of these "No Waiting" signs were erected under local by-laws, but apparently I am wrong. I have learned as I grow older, and I get a little more wise. Perhaps I could commend that to others who do not seem to follow the same righteous path. On the undertaking of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving of motor vehicles

8.—(1) Any person who causes the death of another person by the driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) An offence against this section shall not be triable by quarter sessions; and noshing in the last foregoing -subsection shall be construed as empowering a court in Scotland, offer than the High Court of Justiciary, to pass for any such offence a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.

(3) Section twenty of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926 (which makes special provision where the coroner is informed before the fiery have given their verdict that some person has been charged with one of the offences specified in that section) shall apply to an offence against this section as it applies to manslaughter.

(4) If upon the trial of a person for an offence against this section the jury are not satisfied that his driving was the cause of the death but are satisfied that he is guilty of driving as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, it shall be lawful for them to convict him of an offence under section eleven of the Act of 1930, whether or not the requirements of section twenty-one of that Act (which relates to notice of prosecutions) have been satisfied as respects that offence.

6.50 p.m.

EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Earl said: This was a highly debated clause in another place, and creates a new offence. I understand that an Amendment for the deletion of this clause was put down in another place, but was not selected on Report and on Third Reading. I understand that the opinion was expressed, also in another place, that the clause had very few friends. That opinion came from both sides of the House. The point is this. The clause was originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, during the discussions on the Road Traffic Bill that we had in the last Parliament, and it was recommended to us by the Lord Chief Justice because he said that juries would not convict for manslaughter, that there was something about manslaughter they did not like, and that this was another way of dealing with the whole matter.

I should like very much to hear the arguments to the contrary on this clause. It is unsatisfactory that punishment should be dependent on the results of a wrongful act and not on the nature of that act. Let us look at it in this way. Supposing a man is driving dangerously and he collides with a motor-cyclist and the motor-cyclist dies from his injuries. If the motor-cyclist had been wearing a crash hat, he might not have died. Therefore, it almost amounts to saying that if a man does not wear a crash hat and dies, then the driver of the other vehicle is liable for five years' imprisonment; but that if., on the other hand, the motorcyclist is wearing a crash hat and does not die, then the driver will get off scot-free, although his driving may have been even worse than the driving in the other case.

That is not the right way to treat: the matter. It seems to me to be a matter of chance whether a man dies as a result of an accident or not. It is the same kind of question as that of injuries on the road—and this has been often alluded to—where injuries are sometimes fatal and sometimes not. It has often been criticised in this House and elsewhere. I feel that it is wrong to make the penalty for dangerous driving dependent on whether or not a man dies. It should depend on the nature of the offence, which is dangerous driving. If juries will not convict of manslaughter, then, if there is dangerous driving, and if it is necessary, stiffen up the penalties for dangerous driving; but do not make it dependent on what may be a complete accident. I think the quality of the driving should be the criterion. I should like very much to hear arguments to the contrary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(Earl Howe.)

LORD CONESFORD

On the Second Reading of this Bill, I ventured to criticise, or voice a possible criticism of, this clause and to suggest a possible, alternative. Since then, I have had the advantage of studying what my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place, and of reading the debate in your Lordships' House on the previous occasion, noting in particular what was said in support of this clause by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, and by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I find that weight of opinion quite overwhelming. Therefore, I would not question this clause further except in one particular, nor should I even question it in that particular were the Lord Chief Justice still present, as he had hoped to be. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will remember that in a previous debate the Lord Chancellor criticised subsection (4) which he feared would reintroduce many of the difficulties—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Lord Chief Justice.

LORD CONESFORD

Yes, the Lord Chief Justice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry: I am sure my noble friend meant to say "the Lord Chief Justice criticised".

LORD CONESFORD

I am sorry.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend said "the Lord Chancellor".

LORD CONESFORD

I meant to say that the Lord Chancellor will remember that the Lord Chief Justice criticised subsection (4), which the Lord Chief Justice feared would reintroduce many of the difficulties which the new clause was designed to get rid of. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his correction. I am aware that there has been a slight change in the wording of subsection (4), but I think that the objections of the Lord Chief Justice, who had hoped still to be here when this clause came on for discussion, would remain.

Perhaps I may read one passage from what the Lord Chief Justice then said which puts the matter so clearly that I think it ought to be before the House. I am quoting from what the Lord Chief Justice said on February 15 of last year [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 191, col. 88]: I wish to say a word with regard to subsection (4) of this proposed clause, because, with all due respect, that seems most objectionable. It is going to re-create the whole position that I hoped this clause was going to get rid of. It will give a jury the alternative that, although a man has been killed by a reckless driver, and although they think that there was reckless driving and an unfortunate man has been run into and killed, that jury has still the option of saying it is dangerous driving. In charging juries we shall then have to tell them of this alternative verdict, and of course they will take it in every case. I beg the noble Lord who is moving this Amendment, or Her Majesty's Government, if they accept it, to abandon that subsection. I am afraid that the ground that the noble Lord gave for putting it forward is too subtle for me and may be too subtle for a jury. He said that the jury might find that although a man was driving dangerously he did not kill a person; but surely this charge will be put forward only where a man has been struck by a motor car and killed; therefore I do not see the point of subsection (4). I beg your Lordships not to pass that subsection, for if it is passed one gets back exactly to the mischief which I hoped was to be removed by this clause. I venture to put those remarks before the Committee because the authority of the Lord Chief Justice is very weighty. I should very much like to know whether that point has been fully considered and whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that subsection (4) is no longer liable to this criticism; and, if not, whether he will give it further consideration between now and Report stage.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I add a word? I should not attempt to speak upon the legal aspects of this but I have always been worried about this clause. Let me say that I speak for myself; I do not know whether or not my colleagues agree with me. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, I feel it is wrong that there should be a differing sentence dependent on whether or not life was lost, and not on the seriousness of the crime of dangerous driving. May I illustrate that by putting it before your Lordships in this way? A man may drive very dangerously and plough down half a dozen people, but not one dies. They are all maimed for life; not one of them dies. The maximum penalty that can be given that man is far less than five years' imprisonment. Then suppose that the next man's degree of dangerous driving is not nearly the same as the first, but that the individual he knocks down has a thin skull, or suffers from some similar abnormality, with the result that he dies, and gets the driver the five years. That does not seem to me to be right. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack may be able to convince me that it is, but at the present time I do not think it is right. What I should like to suggest is an alternative—namely, that the penalty for dangerous driving should be increased, whether or not death ensues. I say that because I have come across some bad cases of dangerous driving in which children have been maimed, although, by the grace of God, not one was killed. I think that the offence deserves a far higher penalty than that which is in the Statute to-day. But I cannot quite reconcile with justice the differentiation between a life being lost or otherwise, irrespective of the degree of dangerous driving.

7.2 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think it would be convenient if I were shortly to remind your Lordships of how this matter arose. It arose first with a speech of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who was then leading the Party opposite, on the Second Reading of the earlier Bill. Noble Lords may remember that the point which the noble and learned Earl made, with, I thought, great effect, was the difficulty which the judges face in summing up in the present state of the law. The noble and learned Earl pointed out that, as the law stands to-day, there were four practical degrees of negligence that had to be distinguished. There is the negligence that is necessary for manslaughter, which is the top degree of negligence—the greatest negligence; then there is the degree of negligence necessary for the offence under the Road Traffic Act of dangerous or reckless driving thirdly, there is the negligence under the other section of the Road Traffic Act for careless driving and, fourthly, there is civil negligence—that is, disregarding the fifth type of negligence for wanton driving which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will remember from his researches, occurs in one of the older Acts.

The point that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made was, that it really is putting an impossible task in front of those who have to administer the law to draw the distinction between these matters. That was the start of it. Then my noble friend Lord Merthyr not only put down the Amendment which is broadly the clause that is now in the Bill but, as the noble Lord opposite remarked during the debate, expounded it with a clarity and conviction which I think made a great impression upon the House. It certainly made an impression on the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although he has always maintained what he has said to-day, that it is important not only to consider these cases where death results but the other cases as well. Lord Merthyr's clause was the subject of discussion in the House, and we had a speech from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has referred, a speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and a speech from Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which I have already mentioned. After the debate, I rose to address your Lordships and said that, before I made up my mind on this point, It was most anxious to get the view of the House and, as the view had been favourable, I was confirmed in my own view that it was necessary to deal with the situation—and I had specially in mind what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, had said on Second Reading.

That is the position with which we are faced: that for a judge to sum up in a case of manslaughter by the driving of a motor car with the different degrees of negligence that I have put shortly before your Lordships is an extremely difficult matter. The first answer to my noble friend Lord Howe, is that we have today the offence of manslaughter. Manslaughter by negligent driving has been an offence since wheeled vehicles of all sorts have been used on the Queen's highway. But surely the fact that the offence exists and is difficult for judges to deal with is a good reason for us to clarify the position. And that is what the present clause does.

I should like my noble friend Lord Howe (because I know how he feels on this matter) to consider it a little more, deeply. He will forgive me if I put it on what I consider are the fundamentals of the theory of punishment. It is a fundamental duty of the Government and the State to secure law and order, a matter about which I do not think he and I have any disagreement; and it is impossible, in carrying out that duty, entirely to disregard the consequences of the 'wrongful or criminal action. May I put the simple case to my noble friend where I think the wisdom of our fathers has produced an entirely sensible result? There is an offence of assault; there is an offence of assault and battery; there is a more serious statutory offence which is termed "assault causing bodily harm," for which there is a more serious penalty. The next stage, of course, is the offence of manslaughter, which is a wrongful and criminal act causing death but without the intention necessary for murder.

I have given this matter some consideration because, as my noble friend knows. I have had three years at the Home Office, apart from my purely legal offices. I think it is necessary in a State that one should take into account not only the moral factor that goes into the criminal action but also the result. That is my view and I put it out of deference to the real doubts which I know exist in the mind of my noble friend Lord Howe.

LORD HORE-BELISHA

Is not motive or intention involved in all cases of assault? In this particular case, the death is the result of an accident; but if you assault a man, naturally you bear the consequences of the result of your action.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes. Mens rea is necessary in all offences. When you have reckless driving—that is, driving with a reckless disregard of the life and safety of other people—you have mens rea. If I may put it to my noble friend, again somewhat philosophically, when you come to the point where your default is negative, in the sense that it it is a reckless disregard of the life and safety of other people, it reaches a positive criminality. That is a point from which I should not shrink at all. Perhaps I may remark that you are responsible for things that you have left undone, as you are responsible for things that you have wrongfully done; and if you have left undone the care of keeping a look out, driving at a reasonable pace, giving proper warning of your approach and all the other things—if you have left those things undone on a part of the road where it is extremely dangerous so to do, you have done that with reckless disregard, which is criminal. I do not want to flog the point, but the same applies in fraud. In fraud the definition, as I am sure the noble Lord remembers from his legal studies, is something which is either untrue or in which the accused is recklessly careless whether it is true or false.

My noble friend Lord Conesford mentioned the question of convicting of the less serious offence. I would assure him that that was the subject of the most careful consideration between my right honourable friend the Attorney General, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and myself. These words have been carefully settled, having in mind the point which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, raised, and having in mind the desirability of not opening the door to the practice of convicting only on the lesser offence, which I think is what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had in mind. The wording emphasises that the jury can convict of the lesser charge only—and I repeat the word only—where they are not satisfied that the defendant's driving was the cause of the death. If they are so satisfied, proof having been made on the ordinary principles of causation, the jury must find the accused guilty under the clause. And the form of the subsection already makes clear that the direction to the jury of what constitutes reckless and dangerous driving will be the same on both offences. That is really the kernel of the matter and it is the final point I put to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

We get rid of the difficulty with regard to manslaughter because it is now the same standard of negligence, but there is this additional point of the harm that has been done. Manslaughter will be kept by the police force, broadly, for the case where an armed bandit drives away in a car and shows complete disregard for the life and safety of others—for instance, when he goes through a police cordon, and cases of that kind, which I think my noble friend would agree are in a different category altogether. That is the reason we have taken this course, and I believe it to be necessary for safety on the roads. I do not dispute at all Lord Lucas of Chilworth's general thesis that one must regard it all the way down. I think this is necessary. It would be a retrograde step to leave it out.

EARL HOWE

I thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor very much for his explanation, but I am anxious to be sure that I understand it. The clause now, it seems to me, depends upon whether or not a fatality is caused by dangerous driving. It seems to me to be really in the nature of a pure fluke. The driving may be ultra-dangerous, and yet no fatality results. The driving may be less dangerous and yet a fatality results. It seems to me a matter of pure chance as to whether a fatality is caused or not. I am very anxious about making the offence depend upon results of the accident rather than on the nature of the offence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I answer my noble friend in two sentences? The first point will be answered, of course, by the sentence which will be imposed. That is the first point. This is my second point: if you have the two factors, if you have extreme negligence and death, then I say to him—and the House may consider my view of the matter—that law and order demand that extreme recklessness which causes death should be signally punished. The case my noble friend raised of the thin skull is one that occurs in every form of criminal offence. One has had to consider it in assault. The answer to that is that in a case which is really accidental, in that sense—where the results would not have happened unless there was this particular situation—that is a matter which can be dealt with by the sentence. I do not think there will be any question of the two sentences being in conflict on that point.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Would the noble and learned Viscount mind giving me the answers to two questions? One of the reasons for this is, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, the difficulty of directing a jury. I think it was the impression of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, when he said that one can never stop a British jury returning a perverse verdict. Does the noble and learned Viscount not think that, with the considerations which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put before the House, and which I attempted to put, there will be as much difficulty in persuading a jury to return a verdict which would result in a sentence of five years as in getting a jury to return a verdict of manslaughter in a case where the content of dangerous driving is left as it is? My second question is, would the Lord Chancellor be kind enough to tell me why, under this particular clause, a jury can convict on the lesser offence only if they are not satisfied that death was caused by dangerous driving. What is the difference between that and the ordinary case where a jury are not allowed to convict on the lesser charge of careless driving when the offence originally charged has been dangerous driving but there has been no case of death ensuing? The jury are allowed to bring in a verdict on a lesser charge in one case and not in the other.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

On the first point I do believe that this wilt meet the difficulty of the reluctance of juries; and, if I may give my own view to the noble Lord, it is largely a matter of the word "manslaughter". "Manslaughter" is a good old English description of an offence, but with the ordinary juryman slaughter is slaughter, and, because of that term, they take manslaughter as meaning something incredibly sinister. I think that if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice were here he would agree with me on that point. It is that juries do not like relating the offence which, to them, connotes something very like murder to the accident on the road. Here it is clearly laid down that it is the same degree of negligence as in the Road Traffic Act, the top-level offence, and for the reasons that I gave in answering my noble friend Lord Conesford, the difficulty does not arise.

On the second point, I think there are really two aspects of difficulty. One is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will remember, the offence of careless driving is a summary offence only. On the other hand, dangerous driving is an offence which may he tried either summarily or on indictment. I went into this matter carefully: we discussed it across the Floor, and there are difficulties from that point of view. Here it is simply a question of whether the necessary causation is there. One has to provide for the case where the cause of the death may not be the effects of the accident or where some intervening cause comes in in the ordinary operation of causation so that you can say that the cause of the death here was a new cause intervening and not the ordinary causation from the accident. These are the differences and I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I have considered his point. I am glad that he raised it, and I am very glad indeed that he raised his first point, because it is interesting and a fact that sometimes a word has a connotation outside the text in which we use it on particular facts.

EARL HOWE

In the circumstances I do not press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

LORD BLACKFORD

It was agreed that we should adjourn at seven o'clock. It is now twenty minutes past seven. 'The original agreement was that we should meet again in Committee after the adjournment at 8.15 p.m. It is suggested that your Lordships might like to postpone our meeting to 8.35 p.m. I hope you will agree that the Committee should stand adjourned until that time.

The Sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past seven and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine.

Clause 10:

Variation of minimum age for driving motor cycles on roads

10.—(1) The Minister may by regulations provide that section nine of the Act of 1930 (which imposes minimum ages for the driving of motor vehicles on roads) shall have effect in relation to motor cycles, or, if it is so prescribed by the regulations, in relation to motor cycles of any class or description so prescribed, as if for the minimum age for driving there were substituted such age (not being less than sixteen years) as may be so prescribed: Provided that a person shall not be prohibited by virtue of regulations under this section from driving motor cycles of any class or description if at any time before the coming into force of the regulations he has held a licence comprising that class or description of motor cycles (other than a provisional licence) or if at the time of the coming into force of the regulations he holds a provisional licence, and for the purposes of this proviso "licence" means a licence to drive granted under Part T of the Act of 1930.

LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to add to the proviso: and provided any licence to drive a motor vehicle granted to a person under the age of eighteen years shall exclude a licence to drive a motor cycle having an engine power in excess of two hundred and fifty cubic centimetres capacity.

The noble Lord said: This is a simple and benevolent Amendment on which will not detain your Lordships long. I trust that in his post-prandial mood, the noble Earl is feeling so mellow that he will accept it with open arms. There were 60,295 motor cyclists and pillion riders killed or injured on the roads last year, and for many boys under eighteen a fast and powerful motor cycle is little more than an open sesame to suicide or manslaughter. Anyone who has had an opportunity of closely observing the life of an English village over the ten years since the war would probably agree with that and would also have observed that, with the wages that are paid nowadays, a boy leaving school at fifteen can often save enough to buy a powerful machine secondhand soon after he is sixteen. If I had thought that there had been any prospect that the Government or your Lordships would accept it, I should have liked to move a much more drastic Amendment than this, but this Amendment, at least, will mean that those boys will not be riding machines of 500 c.c. or 1,000 c.c. Such machines are too fast and too heavy for them to control. Statistics show that the majority of the serious accidents to motor cyclists befall those with the heavier machines.

I am afraid that the noble Lord who is to reply has an easy defensive gambit at his disposal in the plea that a special committee of the Road Safety Committee is considering motor cycle accidents at this moment, but I hope that he will agree that this modest Amendment is not likely to conflict with anything that will come out of that Committee. I am sure that he wants to make this Bill more of a life-saver than it is at present, and I feel that I am offering him a chance of taking a modest step in that desirable direction. I assure him that thousands of parents would heave a sigh of relief if they were to hear that this Amendment had been accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 23, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Elton.)

EARL HOWE

I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the Amendment that he has moved. However, he told us that the accidents involving motor cycles are chiefly concerned with the heavier machines. I wonder whether he has any figures to substantiate that statement; and, if so, I think they ought to be given to the Committee. The noble Lord went on to say that a Committee is now sitting. I do not know whether that is so or not—although I hope the noble Lord is right—but if there is a Committee sitting on this question, would it not be wiser to wait until after they have reported before we take action as indicated here? This Amendment seems to me rather to presume that speed is the prime cause of accidents. It is a contributory cause, I agree, and possibly an important cause; but it is by no means the only one. At any rate, I hope that the Government will be careful in dealing with this matter, and not necessarily lay it down that because a motor cycle has engine power in excess of 250 cubic centimetres it is a lethal machine. Any machine, no matter what its cubic capacity, can be lethal and dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced performer. I hope that we shall be careful, especially with a Committee sitting, before we take the action indicated by the noble Lord, although, as I say, I have every sympathy with his Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I think every noble Lord will have sympathy with the aims of my noble friend Lord Elton, and, indeed, of my noble friend Lord Howe. But we in the Government do wonder whether the noble Lord is correct in attributing the chief dangers of motor cycling to boys between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. I know that it is a popular belief, but we have no figures to prove or disprove it; in fact, we rather incline to the belief that the chief dangers come to and come from those a little older and a little bolder, and that the "sixteen to eighteen" idea is, to some extent, a myth.

When we come to the actual way in which the noble Lord has put the Amendment down we find there are a number of rather serious objections to it. The proposal to limit the size of the engine to 250 cubic centimetres is certainly open to serious question. Perhaps I may be excused a personal reminiscence to illustrate this. My first motor cycle came within this category, and it was, I suppose, capable of possibly forty miles per hour. I often had to run alongside it up the hills. To-day, thirty-five years later, a machine of the same capacity would find eighty miles per hour quite within its compass, and would carry two people anywhere. What is going to happen in the future? Is progress in engineering going to continue at that pace? If so, it would be a grave mistake to stick to any limit in this Statute, particularly as it is doubtful whether 250 cubic centimetres is the right limit at all.

The noble Lord has said that a Committee is sitting on this matter. It is the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, on which all sorts of bodies have representation, and the Minister has said that he is going to await their conclusions before he decides what to do. When he decides on the basis of their recommendations, or the evidence given before the Committee, may I assure my noble friend that the Minister may well he a great deal more drastic than my noble friend is in his Amendment. In those circumstances, I would ask him not to press the Amendment.

LORD ELTON

Of course, as soon as I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, say that they had every sympathy with me, I knew that they were going to be dead against the Amendment. It. is fatal to attract the sympathy of any Members of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the noble Lord who replied could tell me when this Committee is going to report, and what kind of action the Minister may take as a result of it. Presumably it is nothing which will affect this Bill. Is it some administrative action under the Act to which he refers?

LORD HAWKE

I am afraid I do not know exactly when they are expected to report, but the Minister can proceed by regulations and, as I haw said, his regulations could be a great deal more drastic than the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD ELTON

I hope they will be. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.48 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) After the passing of this Act no person shall be granted a provisional licence for driving a motor cycle 'Intl such person shall have satisfied an examiner appointed by the Minister (or appointed in a manner prescribed by regulation made by the Minister) that he or she has adequate knowledge of the Highway Code.

The noble Lord said: I have undertaken to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archibald, who is at present convalescing after a serious illness. I hope my poor advocacy will be able to make it clear. It is a simple Amendment. What is in my noble friend's mind is that a youngster can purchase or borrow a motor cycle—he need not own it—and get a provisional licence. He puts a couple of "L" plates on the machine, and away he can go. Unlike the car driver, he has no licensed and experienced driver with him. He is launched into the blue. My noble friend had the idea that it might be conducive to a diminution of the risk of accident if', before this youngster sallied forth as a potential accident bringer, he at least knew the Highway Code. That is the simple purpose of the Amendment, and perhaps it may commend itself to the Government. I believe it is administratively possible for him to be questioned by an examiner. Perhaps he will have to present himself with his provisional licence to a driving examiner where he will have to pass a test before ever he starts, and go through the Highway Code. That was my noble friend's simple purpose. On his behalf, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

8.51 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

We are well aware of this problem, which is inseparable from a machine on which the learner driver cannot carry as a passenger an experienced driver alongside him. At the moment the applicant for a provisional licence has to sign a form that he has studied the Highway Code and then, when he applies for a test, he has to satisfy the examiner that he has a working knowledge of this Highway Code. The noble Lord on behalf of his noble friend wants to put in another stage, and that is an examination before the granting of the provisional licence. This is really inserting another bureaucratic hurdle into the process of getting on to the road. It will mean a considerable expenditure of money and manpower to create such a machine. The alternative would be to throw it on to the existing machine and thus provide a quite insufferable further delay in the taking of driving tests. Frankly, we have to be careful before putting further bureaucratic hurdles into the life of people at the moment, because since the start of the war they have really had rather a bellyful of them.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I ask the noble Lord a question? Would he express an opinion as to whether the acceptance of this Amendment and the placing of a "bureaucratic hurdle", as he calls it, would help to save accidents?

LORD HAWKE

I was just coming to that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am glad of that.

LORD HAWKE

I was just about to say that we have to have a very good cause for putting another bureaucratic hurdle into the lives of our people. Frankly, in this case we do not believe it would serve very much useful purpose. The only thing it would really prove is that the would-be applicant was an expert in answering correctly a few verbal questions on the Highway Code, and it might have little relation to real life—the application of the Highway Code to driving. We are, of course, entirely sympathetic towards anything which will make motor cycling safer, but we honestly do not believe that the Amendment would serve any useful purpose. In fact, there is no evidence that we can find that the learners are any more dangerous than the people who have graduated past learning. For these reasons, we hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I must confess that I am, I will not say impressed, but at least I can understand the concluding remarks of the noble Lord. At any rate, he gave some cogent reason. The first part of his remarks, I thought, was just a lot of useless padding about bureaucratic hurdles.

LORD HAWKE

I suggest that the noble Lord should hear my argument through without saying that—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I listened intently to the noble Lord. All I can hope is that my noble friend who is not here is more convinced and satisfied than I am. If the noble Lord had cut out the first half of his address to your Lordships on bureaucratic hurdles and had then addressed himself to this one specific point: "Do the Government think that it would lessen accidents?" that was all that mattered. I would put all the bureaucratic hurdles I could think of around anybody if it would make one contribution to the reduction of accidents. Bureaucratic hurdles have nothing whatever to do with the case—it is a lot of useless padding put in a brief. I will not press the Amendment. My noble friend can read the reply as well as I can, and will be able to make his choice whether or not to take any further action on the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.56 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) After the passing of this Act no person shall be granted a licence (including a provisional licence) or the renewal of a licence for the driving of a motor cycle unless such person has produced to the licencing authority a current road licence for the motor cycle which the applicant for a driving licence proposes to use.

The noble Lord said: Again I will ask the Committee to consider this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archibald. What my noble friend seeks to do is this. It is possible for somebody to acquire a motor cycle and not to have a licence, and vice versa. Again, a learner can borrow, and not possess, a motor cycle, which may be either his father's, that of a friend, or of a driving school—whether or not it is covered by third party insurance will not even have been found out—and he does not have to get a licence. He has to get only a driving licence—he does not have to get an Excise licence—and he can go out on that motor cycle, which is not his property, and perhaps do irreparable damage. The simple purpose of the Amendment is to see that nobody shall be allowed a licence, whether provisional or otherwise, to rick a motor cycle unless he can produce an Excise licence for a motor cycle which is his own property. It is a simple matter I do not know whether it will commend itself or whether it is another "bureaucratic hurdle". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD HAWKE

I am glad the noble Lord was able to explain something of this Amendment, because I must say that it had my advisers and myself absolutely beaten as to its intention. Frankly, I do not think it rises to the height of a bureaucratic hurdle, because I do not think any bureaucracy would ever countenance such a proposal. The noble Lord hinged his case rather on that of the boy who borrows a motor cycle not knowing whether it is insured. If the motor cycle is licensed, so far as I am aware it must be insured; and under this Amendment, if it were passed, I can see nothing whatsoever to prevent him from borrowing a licence instead of borrowing the motor cycle: he has only to produce a current road licence; and it does not matter whether it is for the bicycle he really intends to use or not. It is quite impossible under this Amendment to tie up the granting of a licence to drive a certain machine with that particular machine, and it would produce great practical difficulties for people, such as commercial firms, motoring organisations or even possibly the General Post Office, who have to license boys or young men to ride fleets of motor cycles. We believe that this Amendment, unless it has some purpose which has so far not been revealed, is really quite impracticable, and I would ask my noble friend not to press it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I have served the purpose I intended and my noble friend can read what the noble Lord has said, and I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

9.0 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:

Restriction on use of footpaths and bridle ways for motor trials.

"12.—(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed, or other trial, between motor vehicles on a footpath or bridleway shall, unless the holding of the race or trial has been authorised by the highway authority, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a highway authority to authorise under subsection (1) of this section the holding of a race or trial may appeal to the Minister; and on any such appeal the Minister, after affording the authority an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, may authorise the holding thereof, and an authorisation under this subsection shall have effect as if it were an authorisation of the highway authority.

(3) Any authorisation given under this section may be given subject to such conditions as may be specified by the authority giving the authorisation.

(4) No statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways, or any specified footpath or bridleway, shall affect the holding of any race or trial authorised under this section; but this section shall not prejudice any right or remedy of a person as owner or occupier of, or otherwise interested in, any land.

(5) In relation to any length of footpath or bridleway not repairable by the inhabitants at large the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect with this substitution for references to the highway authority of references to the council of the county borough or county district in which the length of path or way is situated.

(6) The foregoing provisions of this section are adoptive, and shall extend to the area of the council of a county or county borough when adopted by resolution of the council; and—

1. (a) the Third Schedule to the Public Health Act, 1925 shall apply to resolutions adopting this section, but with the substitution for the reference to the Minister of Health of a reference to the Minister and with the omission in paragraph 5 of that Schedule of the words from 'or if the consent' to the end;
2. (b) subsection (2) of section five of the said Act of 1925 (which provides for proof of the passing of resolutions) shall apply to resolutions adopting this section.

(7) It is hereby declared that in section thirteen of the Act of 1930 (which prohibits motor racing and speed trials on public highways) the expression 'public highway' does not include a footpath or bridleway.

(8) In the application of this section to Scotland—

1. (a) for references to a highway authority there shall be substituted references to the county council or town council in whose area the footpath or bridleway in question is situated, and subsection (5) shall be omitted;
2. (b) for the references in subsection (2) to the Minister there shall be substituted references to the Secretary of State;
3. (c) in subsection (6) for the reference to a council of a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to a town council, and the words from the second 'and' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, a casual glance at the Order Paper suggests to me that we have got ourselves into rather a pretty pickle in regard to this Amendment followed by the Amendments put down by Lord Conesford, Amendment No. 22 by Lord Lucas of Chilworth and No. 23 by Lord Chorley. The purpose of this particular Amendment is to put right something that is causing a certain amount of anxiety at the present time. In other words, it is a method of regulating organised rallies, trials and hill-climbing tests which are held on motor-bicycles on footpaths and bridleways in some parts of the country. I personally know very little about this matter, but I am given to understand that it is causing a certain amount of anxiety and dissatisfaction.

What we do in this clause is to make such an activity a criminal offence in certain circumstances. The present posi- tion very roughly is this. Under Section 14 of the 1930 Act it is an offence without lawful authority to go on a bridleway or footpath. The draftsmen in 1930 were no doubt just as well-informed as the draftsmen to-day, and the answer is that lawful authority was a broad term, because they did not know then who was the correct person to turn to in order to obtain that authority. The practice, I am given to understand, is that authority is gained from the owners for such use of the property when required. But it is not considered to be quite enough. It appears that in some cases the owners are not immediately concerned with bridleways, and therefore it is thought that we should find an authority which may be more interested than the owners are in those who walk or ride. Accordingly this clause was brought forward, after certain suggestions had been made by Mr. Chuter Ede in the other place; and it is believed. I know not with what truth, that it goes a long way to meet what he has in mind.

What happens here is this. Very broadly, the local authority can adopt the clause here if it wishes to. If it adopts the clause, it means that the highway authority in respect of the bridleway or footpath or, alternatively, where there is no highway authority, the local authority, can refuse or authorise the use of this particular bridleway during certain times for trials if it wishes to do so. I should like to point out that in this clause the civil rights of the owner or occupier are fully preserved under subsection (4), the very last sentence of which makes that perfectly clear.

I would just add one other point, because it is quite clear, from observation of the Amendments which follow this, that some noble Lords would like to stop this form of sport altogether. I only ask your Lordships: is this wise? I daresay that if people who drive motor-cycles are driven from this activity on to the main roads, where traffic is congested, they will necessarily expose themselves that much more to danger. I am given to understand that there are places in the country where rallies of this kind can be held without much inconvenience to anybody. In our great cities there are a number of young people, called by various names, who are engaged in certain activities which may not be very desirable. I believe it is a good thing that young people should have an outlet of this kind in a perfectly legitimate and relatively regulated manner, and I think it would be a pity to try to stamp too strongly on this sport in places which may be quite satisfactory for the purpose. I shall certainly listen very carefully to the arguments put forward, but I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind what I have said on the reasons which prompted Her Majesty's Government to put forward this clause.

LORD CONESFORD

Though I am rather a beginner in these matters I understand that under the procedure of this House I must now move my Amendments to the Amendment, as I cannot reply to the speech of my noble friend until I have done so.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I believe it is the general procedure of the House not to follow that practice too closely. If the noble Lord wishes to speak generally on the clause, I think there will be no Objection.

LORD CONESFORD

In that case, let me say to the noble Earl that I am wholly opposed to this clause, which I believe is quite mistaken and will certainly not achieve the desire of any person who spoke in another place, either in Committee or on Report. It is in complete conflict with what was urged by Sir Frank Medlicott, Mr. Chuter Ede and Mr. Mitchison. In order to explain matters may I remind the Committee of the existing law? Very briefly, it is to be found in two sections of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sections 13 and 14. Section 13 makes it a criminal offence for any person to promote or take part in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public highway. Although "public highway" is not defined in that section, the view held by the County Councils Association, on advice given them, is that that term includes bridleways and footways. That is the first prohibition—a total prohibition on promoting or taking part in races.

We then come to Section 14, with which my noble friend has just dealt, which makes it an offence to drive on to such land, let alone race upon it. The words are these: If without lawful authority any person drives a motor vehicle on to or upon any common land, moor land or other land of whatsoever description (not being land forming part of a road), or on any road being a bridleway or footway, he shall be guilty of an offence … Everybody who spoke on this subject in another place on both the Committee and Report stages, desired not a reversal of the law but a strengthening of the law: a strengthening of the law to avoid the use of commons, bridleways and pathways to the detriment of those who have the right to pass along them—namely, pedestrians and riders of horses.

The object of my Amendments, if the clause were to stand, would be to improve the clause in these ways. First of all they would make it clear—this was the object of the Amendments proposed in the House of Commons—that "lawful authority" within the meaning of Section 14 would require the permission both of the owner of the land and of the highway authority. If both those permissions were obtained in writing—which is the object of my first two Amendments— something would be dome. But, in view of the hint which has been given me by my noble friend, let me now proceed to look at the clause brought forward by the Government. The first subsection enables the highway authority to give a permission—which, so far as I know, has never even been openly asked by these who organise motor cycle trials. I am told that the almost universal practice of those who conduct these scrambles and tests is to see that the speed part of the trial takes place on private land away from any highway, including footpaths and bridleways. In any event, I think it would be quite outrageous that these speed trials should take place on footpaths and bridleways. Are not our children to be safe anywhere? My noble friend has said: "Why drive racing motor cyclists on to the highway?" Where are we to drive the child seeking to have a safe walk?

I am really astonished that the Government should have brought forward such a clause. I should he glad if my noble friend, or perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, would advise me whether or not I am right in this view. Although the new clause which has just been moved takes away the criminality of those who organise these speed trials after consent has been obtained, there is nothing that will give them exclusive right to the footpaths for the purpose of their trials. I hope that I shall be quite right in informing the rambling associations who have consulted me that they will be perfectly in order in arranging a ramble on the same footpath, on the same day and at the same hour for which a highway authority has given permission for a speed trial. That begins to illustrate the futility and absurdity which has been reached by this clause. I do not wish necessarily to stop these trials. I am not denying that it may be a legitimate sport. But there are many legitimate sports. Boxing is a legitimate sport, but that does not mean that you are allowed to conduct it in the Central Lobby of the Palace of Westminster. By all means let this legitimate sport of motor cycle scrambles be conducted if a place can be found where they may be legitimately conducted. But why it should be necessary to deprive pedestrians and riders of horses of all their rights in order to promote this sport has not been explained in any way by my noble friend in moving this Amendment.

He points out, rightly, that in subsection (4) certain rights are given to the owner and occupier to enforce private rights—I suppose by seeking an injunction after the highway authority have already given permission: a rather clumsy proceeding. But though certain rights are given or reserved to the owner and occupier, what about the rights of the public, the rights of the pedestrian and the rights of the rider of a horse? I have been a motorist for many years. I am wholly sympathetic to the plea of the motorists that there should be some roads reserved to motorists on which no other traffic can go. But if that is a demand of motorists, how can they possibly justify the demand that there should be no place reserved for the pedestrian and none for the rider of a horse? I cannot understand this sudden apparent hatred on the part of the authorities for all quiet pursuits in the country. What is so wrong about children, or even adults, enjoying a walk along a footpath in the countryside, free from motor traffic and its noise, its danger and its smell? Is there anything wrong in taking pleasure in the countryside in this way?

May I call attention to another monstrous provision of this clause? After providing that a highway authority can give permission for holding car trials along the footpaths, it goes on to pro- vide that if the highway authority—normally the county council—refuse to give such permission there is a right of appeal to the Minister, who can override the county council's refusal. I ask any noble Lord who studies this matter: can he think of any conceivable reason why a right of appeal should be given where permission has been refused and no right of appeal should be given where permission has been granted? If any right of appeal is to be given, it must be given whether permission is granted or refused. There is a great deal more I could say on this subject. I content myself with putting this simple statement to noble Lords in every quarter. If before this new clause appeared on the Marshalled List anyone had said that Her Majesty's Government were about to table a clause permitting motor racing on footpaths—

EARL HOWE

I am sorry to interrupt a speech, but I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to spoil a good case by going too far. There is no intention or desire on the part of any motoring organisation to stage motor races in the way he describes. If he will look at his own Amendment, he will see that it refers to motor cycles.

LORD CONESFORD

If a cycle is not a motor vehicle, then I am wrong, but I thought that that was perfectly understood. I am not talking about what the motor organisations propose, but what the clause says. I repeat that if anybody had said, before this new clause appeared on the Marshalled List of Amendments, that Her Majesty's Government intended to insert a clause permitting racing between motor cycles on footpaths—

LORD WALERAN

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. If he can produce one case over the past fifty years of motor-cycle racing having taken place on footpaths I shall be greatly astonished.

LORD CONESFORD

That is exactly my point: it has never hitherto been legal. This clause would, for the first time, make it legal. My noble friends are humane and decent men, and the last thing they would intend would be to do anything of the sort. But I still repeat that this clause will enable it to be done: and I still repeat, even if I am interrupted again—because you have only to look at the clause to see that what I say is true— that, by this clause, Her Majesty's Government are legalising, subject to the consent of the highway authority, motor racing on footpaths.

EARL HOWE

That is not so.

LORD CONESFORD

The eminent lawyer who interrupts me says that: this is not so.

EARL HOWE

I happen to be the chairman of the body that controls motor racing in this country, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is not the slightest danger that that body would, grant any such permit; and without a permit it cannot be done.

LORD CONESFORD

I am really not interested in the permit of the noble Earl. This is a legislative Assembly, and I am interested in the law of the land. The power is not vested in the noble Earl. Some people may wish that it were, and some may say, "Thank Heaven it is not!" But the point is that at the moment the power is not vested in my noble friend, and what we are considering is a change in the law of the land which would make motor racing on footpaths legal. I say, for the nth time that, if anybody had said that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insert such a clause, he would be told either that he was talking absolute nonsense, or that the Government had gone off their heads. Nobody would have believed it possible that a clause so monstrous in its effect and its conception should be put on the Marshalled List of Amendments in this Committee. I hope that I halve said enough to show that this clause has objections.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I make an appeal to the Government to withdraw this clause? Its origin was that motor-cycle clubs were using bridle paths and footways, by the permission of the owner or occupier of the land, for these motor-cycle scrambles. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and when I read this proposal I was shocked that any Government should try to legalise this—and that is what it comes to. The difficulty in the other place was, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, to find a clear-cut definition of what constitutes "lawful authority" under Section 14 of the 1934 Act. May 1 tell the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that I am not opposed to motor-cycle scrambles, so long as they are held on private property, and on a bridlepath or footpath over which the public do not have right of highway and access.

Here is a parallel in motor racing. I strongly opposed the proposal to shut the Queen's highway for the purposes of motor racing. I said that motor racing was a perfectly legitimate sport, but that it should be held on private tracks, where the public did not have right of access and had to pay to go in. I say the same about motor-cycle scrambles. If motorcycle clubs want to indulge in this sport, then they should hire private lands and make a track, possibly up some mountainside which could be used for this purpose. But to say that this is to be legalised, that application must be made to the highway authority, with an appeal to the Minister if the application is turned down, to use a public bridleway or public footpath along some of our beautiful countryside for a purpose of trial, competition, race, or whatever the wording is in this clause, is wholly shocking. Surely, we must preserve something of the countryside.

I put a Question to Her Majesty's Government this afternoon about ruining the vista of the countryside by the erection of 136-foot pylons. You cannot walk in the quiet of the country without being blasted by the noise of aircraft and without seeing on every hill a wireless mast or a direction indicator of some kind. Surely, we can preserve some of the countryside as it was originally. These bridlepaths go back into history as the right of way of pedestrians and those who ride horses. I have put down an Amendment for the sole purpose of trying to clarify the words "lawful authority". I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to withdraw this proposed new clause and to try to draft an Amendment that would clarify what "lawful authority" is, if the Amendment that I have put down does not meet the case. We on this side of the House strenuously resist this clause as it stands, which would allow these bridlepaths and footways, over which from time immemorial the public have had rights of access, to be used for this purpose. Have your Lordships ever seen one of these bridlepaths after one of these scrambles? It is never the same again, and it cannot be helped. The narrower they are, the steeper they are, the better. In wet weather they are ploughed up for inches, and they never recover. Have your Lordships seen the crowd scattering the countryside with cigarette cartons and ice cream cartons? That is what happens. I do not mind any of that being done so long as it is on private land where a charge can be made to the people who like to watch this sport and engage in it, and if somebody is there to clear up the mess. But to hold these scrambles on country bridlepaths or footpaths is entirely wrong. I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has made an unanswerable case, and we will support him right through to the end.

LORD DERWENT

May I say a few words, late as it is, because I happen to have been on both sides of the fence? I am a landowner, and for some years I was president of the local motor-cycle club, who serve a useful purpose. For a long time there was a place on my property where they liked to have a scramble, which they did quite frequently. That land became used for agricultural purposes, and they then came to me and said, "We should like this scramble on a particular footpath." That was largely disused and straight up a hillside, which was suitable for their purpose. On other occasions I have had the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wanted to hold certain events with cars; and, as in the case of the motor-cyclists, the organisers came to me and asked if they might use certain places. That is all right. But this footpath which they wanted to use went up through a part of the village behind the vicarage, and it could be used only on a Sunday. The law did not allow them to use it without my permission, but because it would have been on a Sunday my answer was, "No; you must find somewhere else." I had nothing suitable which was not agricultural, but I helped them to find a suitable place on War Department land—which I may say the War Department were only too glad to give.

Under this clause, however, which seems to me almost half-witted—at present everyone is happy; the motorcycle club is happy, I was happy and the village was happy because they did not have a noisy Sunday—they may apply to the local authority, who may, for one reason or another (it may be that they do not agree with the mayor) say: "All right; use that part behind the vicarage through the village on Sunday afternoon." Or, if they so wish, they can appeal to the Minister and say: "We think the vicarage ought to be cheered up and it should be allowed on a Sunday afternoon." Even if the Government want to alter the law to regularise these things, they should not give these sweeping powers to people who know nothing of the neighbourhood and of the great distress caused to local communities.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Enough has been said to make me want to join in the appeal to the Government to have another look at this clause before the Report stage, although I cannot go quite to the lengths that my noble friend Lord Conesford or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, went, not having such a fertile imagination as to picture tiny tots being run over by motor cycles and confetti being sprayed on bridlepaths. In practice, the type of motor racing we are talking about is mostly reliability trials. I do not know enough about them to know whether it is always possible to have them when and where you want to without going over short lengths of bridle or footpath. For that reason, I do not think there ought to be an absolute prohibition, making it completely impossible to allow the use of a bridlepath or a footpath in any conceivable circumstances. I think, however, it should not be legal to do a thing of that sort unless permission is definitely obtained from two sources: one the highway authority, and the other the landowner. I feel that a highway authority, taken by and large, is a perfectly good judge, having a local knowledge of whether or not a thing should be allowed. But if the highway authority decides not to spoil the amenities, I do not think that the Minister, who in the ordinary way of things knows far less of local conditions, should be able to override the county council. That point ought to be looked at again.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that the new clause had dealt satisfactorily with the landowner because it said in subsection (4) that this section shall not prejudice any right or remedy of a person as owner or occupier of, or otherwise interested in, any land. I would not dispute for a moment that what he said is technically correct, but I do not think that that wording is anything like as satisfactory as the simple wording which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has proposed later on, to say that just as the consent of the highway authority must be obtained, so also must the consent of the owner. I ask my noble friend in front to think carefully about that matter.

In case I have not made myself clear I will tell him exactly what will happen if the wording stands now as it is in the subsection. If somewhere or ether a reliability trial or a scurry takes place on land belonging to some landowner without his knowing anything about it, he will then make a complaint and will be told that he is fully protected under subsection (4) of this clause. He will ask what his remedy is and will probably be told that he has to go to the county court. Would it not be better to lock the stable door before the horse is stolen and put the provision in this Bill that the consent of the landowner has to be obtained in writing, as the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, suggested elsewhere, before the trial is allowed to take place; and that without those two consents—that of the highway authority and that of the landowner—no such thing should happen?

9.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not know whether the Government are going to answer on any point of law, but I am wondering whether they could clear up three points which puzzle me. In the first place, what is the law now if the clause is not passed? My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford spoke with great confidence, as he is entitled to do, to the effect that it is not now lawful to carry out these trials on private property along this footpath. I rather question, however, whether that is the case, and I wonder whether the Government take the same or a different view. The premise of my noble friend appears to be that Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act forbids such trials on a highway, and then he goes on to say that a bridlepath or footpath is a highway. I wonder whether that is so.

I used to walk rather a lot in the Lake District, where there are many bridlepaths and footpaths. Under the Road Traffic Act, is it really the case that any one of those paths is a highway at present? Speaking with rather less acquaintance of this branch of the law than my noble friend, I should rather question it. I hope that the Government will he able to tell us whether or not that is so, because, if I am right, it is not possible, as the law now stands, legally to rule out these motor-cycle or motor trials on a footpath, provided that the landlord consents. I should have thought that under Common Law, apart from the Road Traffic Act, the position is that, provided the landlord consents, the trials are legal, although there are circumstances in which other people's rights of way, public or private, might be interfered with by such trials. I wonder whether that is the Government view.

Secondly, some of my noble friends have suggested that if this clause is passed the consent of the landlord will be no legal answer. That is not my own reading of the clause. I may be wrong, but I should like some kind of assurance on that point from the Government, if they can give it. Thirdly, what is the relationship between this clause and the legislation on access to mountains? There we see a piece of legislation which gives the public right of access to various pieces of barren land for the purpose of sport and amusement. That falls short of a right of way in the ordinary course; the land is not a footpath or a bridlepath. Does this piece of legislation affect that other legislation in any way? And, if so, in what way? At this late hour, I do not wish to enter into the rather thorny merits of this subject, but I think these are three questions which should be answered.

LORD CHORLEY

I should like to add my voice to the appeals which have been made to Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this clause. I have no doubt at all that the Minister felt that he was satisfying the requests of ramblers, of local authorities and others who have been worried more and more by this problem over the last few years. But evidently he or his advisers had not time to look at the subject with the attention which it deserves, because, in fact, the new clause which has been tabled has been received with dismay by all the interests which were asking to have something clone to improve the situation that has given rise to such difficulty ever the past years. The outdoor societies—and I am authorised to speak for the Standing Joint Committee on National Parks, the Ramblers' Federation and other bodies of that kind—feel that if this goes through the situation will be much worse than it has been over the last years. I understand (though I am not authorised to speak for them) that several of the county councils are very greatly concerned over this problem, particularly the Derbyshire County Council—because the Peak District, in the centre of the largest industrial area in the country, has been particularly affected over the last years—and all the county councils with jurisdiction over the Pennines, the Lake District and some parts of Wales.

It is true that in the past the trials which have taken place have been reliability trials, where there has been a certain amount of speeding, and that private land has always been hired for the purpose. My information is to the same effect as that mentioned by other noble Lords. The first grave defect in the present proposal is that it is going to make possible racing, which is prohibited on highways, which are, after all, if anything, more suitable. I agree that racing ought not to be allowed on the public roads, but to permit it on footpaths and bridleways—really, I cannot think that the Minister's advisers appreciated what they were doing. I suggest that, whatever else we do, we ought to make racing and speed trials, which can be licensed if this clause goes through, completely impossible on this sort of place. Every noble Lord in this House must appreciate what a footpath and bridleway is like. Is it the sort of place in which racing should be permitted? As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, says, it is not. His organisation itself would not approve of this. If that is so, why enable it to become lawful under this clause? The least the Government can do here. I think, is to make racing and speed trials an offence under whatever legislation is passed.

The other side of the problem, the use of these places for reliability tests, is a rather more difficult matter. But I suggest that these footpaths through this lovely country are not the right place for this sort of thing to take place. A noble Lord opposite (I think it was Lord Bridgeman) suggested that on the whole these events take place on the roads, and that there might be just short bits of them which are allowed to take place on footpaths. But that is not really what is happening. The people who organise these trials try to get them off the roads altogether. I have here an extract from a paper about a trial in the Pennines, in which the circuit is eighteen miles long, entirely over footpaths and bridleways. It is regarded as a particularly good one, because no single solitary section is upon a metal road. I agree with the Minister and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that it is right that these young fellows should be given places of some kind where they can test their motorcycles; and I know that many of the qualities which are of value to the community are developed in this sort of way. But the trials should be not on public footpaths and bridleways but in special places which are surveyed and chosen as suitable for the purpose.

The number of people engaged in this sort of activity cannot amount to more than hundreds. In the industrial part of England at the week-ends, literally hundreds of thousands of people are out. One sees the people pouring out of Manchester, Sheffield, Derby and all the big towns, into the Pennines and the Peak District and the Lake District—hundreds of thousands of them. They come to take their pleasure in walking, through this lovely country over the footpaths. The number of people on horseback over the bridleways is substantial, though not comparable with the people walking along the footpaths. It really is, I submit, altogether wrong that these people, hundreds of thousands of them, should have their pleasure and recreation destroyed in this sort of way, in order that a few hundred motor-cyclists may break up these footpaths. What Lord Lucas of Chilworth says about the state of the footpaths after the reliability run in wet weather is absolutely correct. They are unusable to foot passengers for months afterwards, and some of them are fifteen, eighteen or twenty miles in length. Twenty miles of footpath destroyed on a wet Sunday: is it not an appalling prospect?

The astonishing thing about this is that it was thought until very recently that the law did not permit this sort of thing to take place. The interesting thing to me, if I may be reminiscent for a moment, is that when the National Parks Act first came up in your Lordships' House it contained a clause designed to prevent this kind of thing happening. When the advisers of the Government looked at it again they came to the con- clusion that the provisions to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has referred, were sufficient to enable this problem to be dealt with; and on behalf of the Government at that time I tabled an Amendment to take out this particular clause from a section of the National Parks Act on the ground that it was quite unnecessary. One would not have done that, of course, unless one had been authoritatively advised that that was the case.

I have been looking with a feeling of frustration at the remarks which I addressed to your Lordships on that occasion, speaking from a brief which had been prepared by advisers who were much more familiar with the law on this subject than I was or am myself. I entirely agree that this matter should be regulated and I suggest that it should be bone in such a way as to make it necessary for people who wish to promote and take part in these trials to make arrangements with landowners in suitable places, paying some fee for doing so. These clubs should pay, for they are quite well-to-do and many have substantial financial resources at their disposal. This particular clause is defective in a number of ways. Surely it is a clumsy and awkward arrangement to enable appeals to be made against refusal of a licence in this way and to set up complicated machinery. If it is to be done, is it not better to leave it to the county council? And if there is to be an appeal, surely the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or the noble Lord, Lord Conesford (I am not sure which) is right in suggesting that there should be a right of appeal on behalf of amenities societies. There are many strong footpath societies, particularly in the Peak District and in the North of England. They, too, should be allowed to make an appeal in the event of a licence of this kind being granted by the highway authority. Obviously what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Another weakness is the fact that under this clause the highway authority is allowed to opt out. Surely if this activity is to be permitted it should be regulated in some way and county councils ought to face up to their responsibilities and should not say, "We wash our hands of the whole thing. We are going to leave it just as it is. Let them get along in the way they have been going in the past." I suggest that that is not a satisfactory way of looking at it. The law should be laid down perfectly clearly and effectively administered, however it may stand. That involves making the new clause (whatever it may eventually turn out to be after, as I hope, Her Majesty's Government have taken it back anti considerable improved it) mandatory on all highway authorities and not leaving it optional and adoptive as the Bill does at present.

Finally I associate myself with what was said by my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. If this is to go through, then I hope Her Majesty's Government will feel that the best method is to let racing take place on tacks hired and organised for the purpose by motor cycle associations in the same way as motor organisations do it. I hope Her Majesty's Government will take that view. But if they insist on a clause of this kind, I hope they will require that the authority in writing of the owner (not of the occupier) should be obtained in the first instance It is the owner who is concerned with this kind of thing and the question of authority should not be left perhaps to a farmer who happens to be occupying the land for a short time. That authority should be taken to the local authority who have a survey of the area, and they should decide whether or not it is a suitable place for a trial. I suggest it must be confined to reliability trials: racing and speeding must be left out. The local authority, having looked at the, whole situation and then exercised their discretion, should decide whether or not to grant a licence. If the clause is to go through I suggest that it should be re-drafted on some such lines as these and should be brought back to your Lordships' House at the next stage of the Bill.

LORD CONESFORD

May I just mention this point? I did not deal with any other than my first two Amendments to that Amendment. Before the Minister replies, perhaps I might say a word on my last two Amendments to the Amendment. The third Amendment relates to the new subsection (7)—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD O'HAGAN)

Do I understand that the noble Lord does not wish to move the first two of his Amendments to the Amendment.

LORD CONESFORD

May I seek guidance here? I will move them if that does not prejudice subsequent objection to the whole clause.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I suggest that, if the noble Lord wishes to address the Committee, he should speak on his first Amendment; and then, if he wishes to develop his arguments on the second and third Amendments, I hope that your Lordships will permit him to do so.

LORD CONESFORD

I am very much obliged. The first two of my Amendments I think I have already covered. The third Amendment strengthens the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It will be observed that while the first five of these subsections are adoptive, subsection (7), is not adoptive at all. So, while it could be alleged, in the case of areas where the highway authority exercised their right to adopt, that there would be some control, in fact, the protection given by Section 13 of the Act of 1930 will finish in every case—in the case of areas where there is adoption and in those where there is not. My final Amendment is to add to the clause as a new subsection: Nothing in this section or in any authorisation or consent given under this section shall authorise any person to create or permit a nuisance on any footpath or bridleway. I suggest that those four Amendments to the Amendment, taken together, all improve this clause. But I agree with the submission made by every noble Lord who has spoken, that they still leave the clause wholly intolerable and unworthy of a civilised assembly.

9.53 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

May I say just a few words on a subject which I do not think has been mentioned in this debate so far—that is the question of the repair of these footpaths and bridleways after they have been used in the manner proposed? First, however, in passing, I would say that I deplore this proposed clause as much as any noble Lord who has joined in the debate so far. I should like to make this point which, as I say, has not been mentioned, though it may seem a small one—the repair of the footpaths and bridleways. As I understand the law on the matter, the responsible authority is the highway authority or the county council, and in the case of footpaths or bridleways the parish council have power to repair them. What is going to happen if the parish council decide to spend a substantial part of their income on repairing a footpath and a week afterwards, without the council being consulted, there is one of these trials or races on the footpath doing—as it must, I submit—considerable damage? I cannot find a word in this clause under which a parish council can be consulted or have any rights whatsover. Yet they may—though it may not be very common—have spent what is to them a substantial amount of money on repairs. Surely some provision ought to be made for the parish council.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It is fairly clear that your Lordships did not take very readily to this proposal, though I do not think that the clause is entitled to the colourful misrepresentation which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has thought fit to give it. The noble Lords, Lord Conesford and Lord Derwent, did not recognise that there is any problem at all. There is a problem here, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, stated fairly, and it is one which requires solution. The problem is: who should give this authority? I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Bridge-man, were very fair in saying that this was not a matter which should be entirely shut down. The question is: who should regulate this and how? That is the problem which we set ourselves here to examine, the solution to which your Lordships have not thought very satisfactory.

After listening to the various suggestions put forward, I am not clear how it could best be done. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked what the law was in the matter. I am bound to say that there is a measure of uncertainty, but so far as I am officially advised, Section 13, which deals with the prohibition of motor racing, has no application to footpaths or bridlepaths. The declaratory clause, to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, took particular objection, is really for clarification and eventually to assist consolidation. The use of footpaths for racing is controlled by Section 14, where it is forbidden to use a bridleway or footpath for any motor vehicle at all without lawful authority. The trouble has always been: what is that lawful authority? It has been assumed to be that of the owner. It is suggested that the owner has given his consent too readily in many cases and allowed these paths to be churned up.

I take it that the general feeling of the Committee is that there should be no absolute prohibition of this form of perfectly innocent adventure or form of exercise or entertainment and that it should be permitted in the right places. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, it is hard to find any considerable right place which may not at some time pass over or along a footpath, and that point has to be overcome.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Earl leaves that point, I do not want him to be under any misapprehension. We on this side say that there should be a total prohibition of motor cycle scrambles over footpaths and bridlepaths over which the public have the right of way as foot passengers or horse passengers. Permission can be given for them on tracks, either natural or artificial, so long as these are not tracks over footpaths over which the public in general have the right of way to-day.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord's views are very definite, but it is surprising to me that he has never before raised this question, which has been present for years. We have brought this problem here and I must say that I got the impression that in the correct places—and there are some extremely isolated bridlepaths—it might be perfectly appropriate; but that is essentially a matter which the local people should decide. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised the question of repair. I speak without absolute certainty on this, but the authority would be the highway authority, who usually are in control of permission to use bridlepaths.

LORD MERTHYR

In the case of footpaths there are two highway authorities: the county council and the parish council.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I appreciate the point of the noble Lord.

LORD MOYNE

The noble Earl mentioned remote places. I should like to make a small point which I think a valid one. Suppose somebody is on a riding tour, has looked up these ancient ways and has ridden twenty miles, and his inn is the other side and he runs into one of these trials. All kinds of disasters are possible. The remoteness does not really make the objection invalid.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

We have had a full discussion on this clause and we are grateful for the views expressed. I propose to withdraw the clause, and we may have the opportunity between now and Report stage of discussing the matter in an endeavour to find something which will meet the situation, which I suggest does require to be met. I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.2 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:

Regulations of cycle racing on highways

".—(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed on a public highway between bicycles or tricycles, not being motor vehicles, shall, unless the race or trial is authorised, and is conducted in accordance with any conditions imposed, by or under regulations under this section, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(2) The Minister may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, for the purposes of the foregoing subsection the holding on a public highway of races or trials of speed of any class or description, or a particular race or trial of speed, in such cases as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the regulations and may prescribe the procedure to be followed, and the particulars to be given, in connection with applications for authorisation under the regulations, and regulations under this section may make different provision for different classes or descriptions of races and trials.

(3) Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable in that behalf, the chief officer of police may give such directions with respect to the movement of, or the route to be followed by, vehicular traffic, during such period, as may be necessary or expedient to prevent or mitigate congestion or obstruction of traffic, or danger to or from traffic, in consequence of the holding of a race or trial of speed authorised by or under regulations under this section, including a direction that any road or part of a road specified in the direction shall be closed during any such period to vehicles or to vehicles of a class or description so specified, and section thirty of this Act shall apply in relation to directions given under this section as they apply in relation to the directions therein mentioned.

(4) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.

(5) In this section the expression 'public highway' does not include a footpath or bridleway."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in the Marshalled List under the name of my noble friend Lord Conesford, but I should point out that that is a misprint and that it should be in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I hope that my noble friend Lord Conesford will give it his profound and powerful support in due course, because I am happy to say that it has nothing whatever to do with the subject that we have just been discussing.

LORD CONESFORD

I am grateful to my noble friend for making it clear that this is not my Amendment. It has been much reported in the Press as my Amendment, and I have had a great deal of abuse on the telephone already which I have done my best to transfer to my noble friend Lord Selkirk.

LORD MANCROFT

I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord has been abused on the telephone, and I am only too happy that none of it has come my way. I cannot think why that should be so, because this is an inoffensive and helpful Amendment. What this clause seeks to do is to provide powers for my right honourable friend the Minister to control the use of public highways for pedal cycle races or speed trials. It goes even further. If your Lordships will look at the second line of the Amendment, you will see that it also has something to do with races between tricycles, which I must confess is an entertainment in which I have never had the privilege of assisting.

All the Amendment seeks to do is this. Hitherto on the highways of this country pedal cycle races, push bike races, have been confined largely to the type of race which I believe is called a time trial, which is an individual race of one bicycle at a time racing against the clock. But of recent years it has become increasingly popular to have massed start cycle races. As your Lordships know, they have them frequently in France; there is the Tour de France,where the whole "sweat" of cycles goes all over France, dislocating the traffic for miles around. This practice has grown in this country of late, and all those who have concerned themselves with it—the Committee on Road Safety, the police, the local authorities—have come to the conclusion that if this sport of massed cycle racing on the roads is not properly controlled it can become both a nuisance and a danger. I am not suggesting that we wish to ban it, or to be hostile towards it; all we seek to do under this clause is to make certain that it is carried out under proper conditions and under rules and regulations, so that it causes no danger to other traffic and no danger to itself.

There have been a lot of casualties in this sport, and we are putting forward a certain number of detailed regulations whereby the Minister, the police and the local authorities can control the sport to make certain that it gives no offence to local traffic, to local people and to itself. I think this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It is not in any way directed against the sport, which has much to be said in favour of it. It is merely to make certain that it takes place under satisfactory rules and regulations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

At the risk of being labelled one who wants to stop racing, I question, and I think the House should question, whether we have not arrived at a state of traffic upon the roads of this country when racing on cycles should be prohibited. The congestion which the noble Lord seeks to overcome by his Amendment is not the only congestion. I grant him that with the present state of the roads the massed starts—and within, I suppose, three or four miles afterwards—are just suicidal. I have here a booklet which perhaps noble Lords were sent to-day by the British League of Racing Cyclists. In it are photographs that illustrate to your Lordships the danger of racing on the roads long after the start. Here cyclists are shown coming up steep inclines, bunched together, and the crowd surging over the road.

With all the good will in the world, what are we trying to do? We are trying to legislate so that accidents on the roads of this country will be diminished. We must be honest with ourselves and say that, if that be so, then the roads of this country must be used only for the legitimate purposes for which roads are there—for the free passage of the ordinary traffic of the country. Later on in this Bill we go to great lengths to try to stop congestion by having vehicles off the road—they cannot park here, and they cannot stop there, because our roads are not wide enough. Would it be too much to suggest that to-day we cannot have on the roads these cycle races, where there is bound to be, at some stage or another, an accumulation of cyclists? That must happen somewhere along the circuit if there are these massed starts. In addition, there are the trainers and the motor followers, and from the wayside verges people run out into the road to give these cyclists sustenance, all contributing to the one thing we are trying to overcome.

Might I suggest that the noble Lord, without any commitment at all, should take this clause back and look at it again? I think there must be some heart searching. We may be getting into a lot of trouble and we may be castigated. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said that he has received a lot of abusive letters. Would the noble Lord tell me whether they were in favour of cycling on the road or against it? I expect I shall get some abusive letters to-morrow for taking the view that the time has arrived when we should seriously think of curtailing this sport. I remember that when I was a boy—a very long time ago—there were hardly any motor cars. There used to be cycle trials against time, but now it has got to massed starts with a hundred or more. I suggest to your Lordships that we have to face this question and think about it. I believe the Government should give a little more thought to this problem and see whether, in all the circumstances of our roads to-day—as they will be and, must be for many years ahead—it is right or whether it should not be barred altogether, and cycle racing, like motor racing, confined to tracks on private land and not allowed on the road. These cyclists could do this and they do it. They have grass tracks and they have asphalt tracks. Is that not sufficient? Do we want these events on the road? I put the suggestion that the noble Lord should withdraw this clause and have another "think" about it before the next stage of the Bill.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

As the Committee will recognise from my athletic figure, I speak as a keen racing cyclist. To tell a more complete story, during the course of to-day I was approached by two very reputable organisations con- cerned with this sport who asked me to put forward two points of view. As I am President of one of the major cycling clubs in this country, it is prudent that I should do so. I venture to say that it is possible that the pedal cyclist's view is not always as fully represented on either side of your Lordships' House as the numbers and interests of the exponents of this sport would seem to demand. I felt, in particular, that if the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Opposition Benches had been a little more familiar with what 17 million cyclists in this country think about the motorists and the use of the roads, he would have been a little more cautious in what he said.

The two points I was asked to put forward are these—they are both of substance, though of different kinds. First of all, why lump the time trials with the mass start races? There is no doubt that this proposed new clause puts time trials on exactly the same footing as the mass start races. The time trial is a form of cycle racing which has been going an on the roads of this country for sixty years. There are about 15,000 time trials of different sizes and importance going on every year on the roads of this country, and they have been going on for a very long time. Why is it suddenly sought to regulate them by this method? I know that the attempt to do so has caused both dismay and resentment—indeed, one of those responsible for time trial racing said to me to-day that he felt doubt as to the whole future of this sport in this country if this clause were carried.

Can the Government tell us why it has suddenly been found necessary to lump the time trial with the mass start race? It has caused much surprise and some resentment on the part of those taking part in time trials. It seems to me that there is a good deal of substance in what they say, because, so far as I know, in all the 15,000 time trials that go on, year by year, in this country there has been no public complaint of any substance against those who take part in them. The mass start race is, as anybody who knows anything about cycling politics knows, a very thorny and controversial subject. I should be the last person to seek to embark, at this late hour, on the thorny politics of mass start racing which has really developed in this country as a sport since the war. But I would venture to put this point to my noble friend. So far as I know, the dangers have proved a great deal less than one would normally have supposed. The premiums on insurance are, I believe, amongst the lowest for that class of business, which does not look as if the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, were entirely justified.

The importance of mass start racing since the war has been that it has been a genuinely democratic development of cycling. It was pressed very much against the desires of the rather more conservative cyclist, like myself, but it proved to be something which did not brook much opposition because it met with such a measure of popular support. It is a great sport in cycle racing, as it is understood very largely on the Continent. In France, it is practically a national sport, occupying almost the same kind of popular interest as the Test Matches do here; and it is, I am afraid, a great source of confusion to the French that their gallant and admired allies, the English, should prove such poor cyclists in mass start racing. The mass start racing which has taken place since the war has gone only a little way to put that balance right. I say little about the complicated and bitter opposition which takes place between the two bodies now responsible for massed start racing in this country. They are both, I think, in some doubt about the wisdom of this clause, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would seek to reassure them.

The last and third point that I wish to raise is this. I feel sure that the noble Lord will tell us that the commencement of this clause, which I think is regulated by Section 25 (2) of the Act, will not be brought into effect until proper regulations are already promulgated. If that were not done a situation would arise in which both time trials and massed start racing would become altogether illegal during a period when the Government were thinking of regulations. I feel quite certain that that would cause widespread and deep resentment, and I hope that in that respect the Government will give the assurance for which I ask.

10.16 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

I was told that one should always be careful in your Lordships' House, for when one speaks on a technical matter some noble Lord is bound to rise from a most unexpected quarter and speak with authority on the subject. I must confess that never in my wildest moments had I supposed that my noble and learned, and now more than athletic, friend, Lord Hailsham, would come forward as the spokesman for the cyclist movement. I confess that I sympathise a great deal with what he said, and I am on his side rather than on that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. By this Amendment we do not want to penalise what is a healthy and amusing sport, so long as it does not get in the way of other people or interfere with road safety.

I cannot go the whole of the way with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, although I may point out to him that, in point of fact, this clause gives the Minister power ultimately to ban the sport completely. But my right honourable friend is loath to take that step. What he wants to do is to regulate it for the benefit both of the sport and of the public, so that benefit accrues to the sport without detriment or danger to the public, and I think these regulations will be sufficiently carefully drawn to ensure that those ends are met.

Let me tell my noble friend Lord Hailsham that time trials, which are. I agree, a pretty inoffensive form of sport, and which have long been held as such, have had to be brought in, since another form of sport—I say this with tredipation in the noble Lord's presence—known as team time trials (it is difficult to say "team time trials" at this time of night) has arisen which is not so innocuous; and it has proved almost impossible to draft an exception into this clause to exclude the one and not the other. I can assure my noble friend that there is no intention of penalising the innocent branch of this sport, but only of regulating the more dangerous form of it, and he can set at rest the minds of his colleagues or assistants in this sport. There is no intention whatsoever of penalising them; the object is merely to make certain that their sport is carried out in a way which meets with the approval of the local authorities and is not dangerous either to themselves or to their neighbours.

I can also set his mind at rest in this respect: the clause will not be brought into effect until the necessary regulations are made, so that his friends can see exactly what they will have to comply with. I think that this is a right and proper clause to put forward. It will not penalise the innocent; it will merely prevent possible danger on the roads to those who ought to submit themselves to some greater form of control. I hope that the Committee will agree, and will approve this Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am glad that the noble Lord has given that further explanation, and I am perfectly prepared to let the matter rest in his hands. I should like to correct the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that if I knew what the cyclists of the country think of the motorists I should be more careful in what said. In any case, I should not be careful in what I said, and that would not prevent my saying to your Lordships precisely what I think I should say. I would rather encourage the use of cycles on the road. I think cycling is a healthy sport, and that every care should be taken over the safety of the ordinary cyclist. I doubt the wisdom, with the roads in their present condition, of using them for racing of any description, whether by motor cars, motor-cycles or cycles. But I am perfectly prepared to accept the explanation of the noble Lord, and will see how the new clause is exercised by the Minister in the next three or four years.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause: . The expression 'lawful authority' in subsection (1) of section fourteen of the Act of 1930 shall mean in relation to the use of vehicles on any road being a bridleway or footway such use in the course of husbandry or for the normal and lawful purposes of access to or egress from any building the consent to which has been given in writing by the owner or occupier of the land over which the bridleway or footway passes.

The noble Lord said: This was my attempt to solve the dilemma in which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, found himself, to find some kind of interpretation of the term and expression "legal authority," which is the term used in Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. This illustrates the view I hold that no one, neither the owner of the property, the occupier of the property nor anyone else, can give authority for a bridleway or footway over which the public have a right of access to be used by vehicular traffic of any kind of description except, as I put it here, such use in the course of husbandry or for the normal and lawful purposes of access to or egress from any building, the consent to which has been given in writing by the owner or occupier of the land over which the bridle-way or footway passes. That means that the owner or occupier cannot give permission for motor cycle scrambles to take place where the 1930 Act says that a motor vehicle must not pass over a footway or bridleway.

I should like the noble Earl to consider whether that does not meet his point. I certainly think the sense, if not the drafting, of what I have in this Amendment meets the position which the Committee desire to see adopted. I think the Committee agree with me that one cannot allow motor-cycle "scrambles" over bridleways or footways, however remote, as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, put it; one cannot allow them to be carried on where the public, have a right of way. I hope the noble Earl will accept my Amendment as the way out of his dilemma. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thought the noble Lord was going to withdraw his new clause in order to discuss it with the one I put down. There are a number of difficulties which I could explain, but I think it would be much better to examine the whole question together; and what I say really applies also to Lord Chorley's proposed new clause.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am quite prepared to meet the noble Earl. We will discuss the matter between now and the next stage, to see whether we can reconcile our opinions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12:

Duty of pedestrians to comply with traffic directions given by constables

12.—(1) Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, any person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to delete "in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road" and insert "on police duty".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was encouraged to put this Amendment down although it is almost the same as the one I put down when the previous Bill was in your Lordships House in 1954. What I seek to do here is to widen the scope of Clause 12. I have not gone as far as the Americans in trying to stop jay-walking by on-the-spot fines, but perhaps I might repeat what I said on Second Reading. One of the reasons why the number of accidents to pedestrians in thickly populated centres in the cities of America is very slight, by comparison with the volume of traffic, is that strict enforcement of the law has practically done away with jay-walking. I told the story of how, when I was in San Francisco and, like a greenhorn from Britain, stepped off the kerb at any spot—for I had done it in England, and why should not I do it in America?—there was always the restraining hand of a good American ally on my arm and the question, "Say, do you wanna ticket?" The police have powers to fine on the spot people who break the law by not going down to the intersection where there is a "Walk" or "Don't Walk" electric sign for crossing the road.

I do not want to go so far as that, but when Her Majesty's Government have, for the first time, gone so far to try to stop the pedestrian being a danger to himself and everybody else I cannot see the sense of confining this provision to "a police constable in uniform" who "is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic." That really means that the only constable who could stop people jay-walking or going against his direction would be, for example, a constable directing traffic at the bottom of Bridge Street, near here. But if, fifty yards away, somebody steps off the kerb in Whitehall and walks up to a bus, that pedestrian can completely ignore the direction of a policeman who is standing on the pavement. I do not think that is right. Would the noble Lord who is to reply (I assume it is now the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft) answer this question for me? Suppose that a police constable, walking along the street on his beat, sees an old lady wishing to cross the road, and takes her by the arm and guides her into the road. He stops the traffic and lets the old lady walk across. Then suppose that, before the old lady gets to the other side of the road, two or three other people, taking advantage of the fact that the policeman has stopped the traffic, start coming across, and the police constable says, "No; go back." Is that constable "for the time being engaged in the direction of" traffic, and if those people do not go back can he take their names and addresses and can they he summoned?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I hear a murmur on the Government Front Bench. That means that any constable walking along any beat, if he sees a person step off the pavement, can say, "No, wait, I will stop the traffic for you," and if that person does not obey him he comes within this clause. If that is so, then I think it should be made a little clearer, because the clause as drafted reads as if the only constables with power to stop pedestrians jay-walking are those who are on point duty for the time being engaged in the direction of traffic. If I am wrong, why not accept my Amendment and put it right, for it says that any police constable in uniform, who gives a sign about crossing the roads must be obeyed? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, leave out ("in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road") and insert ("on police duty").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD MANCROFT

I knew that his trip to America would do the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, no good. He has come back with a lot of very "fancy" ideas—some of them, I must say, very attractive on the surface. I have always been attracted by the idea which he has just put forward, that of the on-the-spot fine, the jay-walking fine. The only one thing wrong with it is—and I am sorry if this sounds pompous—is that it is thoroughly un-English. It certainly has much to commend it, and it would undoubtedly do a great deal to reduce the amount of injury and slaughter of pedestrians. But in this clause we are not going so far as that—indeed, to be fair to the noble Lord I know that he is not suggesting that we should. His Amendment is more or less identical with one which he put down when a similar clause was considered on the earlier Bill. The effect of this Amendment would be to make the clause much wider in scope. Among other things, it would enable any police officer on duty, whether engaged on traffic regulation or not, to order any pedestrian to stop. I suspect that this might be extended so that the purpose for which the order might be given would cover any purpose whether it related to traffic or not.

The noble Lord has argued that it would restrain pedestrians and reduce accidents if the powers were extended to any police constable on duty and not restricted to those engaged in control of traffic. Let me hasten to implement the whisper which he correctly heard passed between the Lord Chancellor and myself. Clearly, what he described, would be an offence. If the policeman who had gone out to help an old lady, had then "shooed" the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and his three friends back, he would clearly be directing traffic. If a policeman saw the noble Lord crossing the road and said: "Wait while I get that Lord Lucas," and then went after him, that would not be directing traffic in the sense in which this Amendment intends. I do not think that there is any great risk that policemen would abuse such an extension of their powers as the noble Lord suggests, but it is an extension which, frankly, we do not think is needed. And we do not want to take any more powers in this Bill than are needed. In the event of the contravention of a police constable's signal in direction of traffic any constable could demand the name and address of the offender.

The noble Lord's Amendment, though I think well-intentioned, would make the clause go considerably further than we consider desirable. We feel that powers over pedestrians should be kept to the minimum, and I think I should have to ask your Lordships to resist any attempt to widen this clause. My view is that, when it comes to be worked out in practice, we shall not find much wrong with it. We shall find, I think, that it will work out very much as the noble Lord would like. I am quite certain that we want to go no further in this connection than is absolutely necessary. Though I have a sneaking affection for the American system, I think we must stick to our own and restrict the powers of the police to what is no more than necessary to carry out the object of the clause.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I point out that the noble Lord is in error when he says that my Amendment would so widen the powers of the police. If he would look at the third line of the clause he will see there that it says: any person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable in the execution of his duty … shall be guilty of an offence … The only one who can give that direction now is a policeman on point duty. So I say, why not give it to other police constables in uniform. If your Lordships will study the statistics of road accidents published by the Ministry of Transport you will see that the number of accidents that take place as a result of carelessness by people in stepping off the pavement without looking at the traffic is very large. If we could save one or two of those accidents by giving the police the powers which I suggest, I think it would be an advantage. I feel that in this matter the Government are being rather "sticky" about an Amendment that is clearly designed to be helpful. It can apply only where people proceed across a road or along a carriageway. It is such a simple point. Would the noble Lord have a look at it and see whether he could not accept the Amendment? If he did, the clause would read like this: Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged on police duty, any person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable, in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic shall be guilty of an offence … Is not that what we all want, and will the noble Lord not have second thoughts on it?

LORD MANCROFT

As the noble Lord and I obviously want the same thing, I do not want to quarrel with him at this hour of the night. We feel strongly that we should not take into this Bill any more powers than we strictly need; and I may add that the police do not want this extra power and do not like the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment. However, since we are both aiming at the same target, I should be discourteous in the extreme if I did not agree to look at the Amendment again in the light of what the noble Lord has said. I make no further promise, however, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment on no stronger obligation than a promise that I will look at it again.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am pleased to do that, and to leave it in the noble Lord's hands. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Control of dogs on roads]:

On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?

10.33 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I cannot part with this clause without expressing my thanks to the Government for putting it in. It gives me greater pleasure to do so when I am able to express my thanks to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. He will remember how strenuously I struggled to have a clause inserted in the 1954 Bill to control dogs on the roads. The only noble Lord from whom I had any support was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and I was admonished severely by the noble Marquess for arguing the case. Now the Government have taken this under their wing, and at last we are going to control dogs, which cause some 2,700 accidents on our roads every year.

LORD BARNBY

May I have the indulgence of the Committee to raise a point on subsection (3), which exempts dogs used for carrying on trade or business and for sporting purposes? I would ask for the provisions of the subsection to be used leniently. Many noble Lords have indulged in the enjoyments that fox hunting offers. Hounds at work necessarily become separated and proceed along the highways and byways back to their kennels, not always under proper control, and I hope that the subsection will be used to give proper protection to foxhounds on the road.

There is another point in that connection: that hounds are often conveyed on the highways by motor vehicle, whereas the horses have to use the highways. Article 26 of the Highway Codedoes not give very good warnings in regard to the overtaking by an automobile of a horseman riding along the side of the road. He is often in the position that the automobile overtaking him does not check particularly, even on a sign. The result is that an automobile coming the other way, and passing at the exact moment when the other automobile is passing the horseman, runs the risk of a serious accident, because of the possibility of something frightening the horse, causing it to shy and the car overtaking the horse to deflect its course and get in the way of the oncoming car. I raise this point only because Article 26 of the Highway Code is so reserved in its appeal to users of the road in motor vehicles to give consideration to horsemen. I hope the noble Earl will permit me at this stage of the Bill to draw attention to this danger of serious accidents occurring.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for what he has said; I do not think there is anything I can add to it. I hope that the Bill, as drafted, meets the point he has in mind, and I think it does. I should like to say how glad we are that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has found full and unqualified satisfaction with this clause.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Not unqualified.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

It gives me great happiness to see the warmth with which the noble Lord has welcomed it.

Clause 13 agreed to.

LORD HAWKE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:

Amendments as to exemption from driving test

14.—(1) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section six of the Act of 1934 (which enables an applicant who held a licence before nineteen hundred and thirty-four to obtain a licence without passing a driving test) shall cease to have effect.

(2) In paragraph (a) of the said subsection (1) (which makes it a condition of the granting of a licence that the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he has at some time passed the prescribed test) for the words 'at some time' there shall be substituted the words 'during the period of ten years ending on the date of coming into force of the licence applied for'.

(3) The said subsection (1) shall not apply to an applicant for a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of any class or description who satisfies the licensing authority that within the period of ten years ending on the date of coming into force of the licence applied for he has held a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of that class or description, not being a licence granted by virtue of subsection (7) of section six of the Act of 1934 (which empowers the Minister to make regulations dispensing with the need to pass a test where the applicant is not resident in Great Britain.)

(4) In this section the expression 'licence' means a licence under Part I of the Act of 1930 ocher than a provisional licence."

The noble Lord said: This new clause arises out of an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. We feel that if a person allows his licence to lapse for a long period it is only right that he should take a driving test before it is renewed. We have chosen the period of ten years as providing a fair compromise between two possible schools of thought: the one that says, "Once a driver, always a driver," and the other which might say, "Tests for all." I should like to emphasise that those people who hold driving licences although they have never taken a test will continue to be able to do so, provided that they do not allow their licence to lapse for ten years. It seems to us to be a reasonable point of view, not only from the angle of safety but also because it will be a relief to local authorities who have to issue licences, and will relieve them of a certain amount of record-keeping. At present they receive a certain number of applications from people who claim to have had licences before 1934 and therefore feel that they are entitled to get a new licence without passing the test. In some cases it is not always easy to check whether, in fact, they ever did have a licence. This will relieve local authorities of that onus.

The second half of subsection (3) deals with the question of persons from abroad. At the moment, visitors are allowed twelve months free of driving test, but after that they are required to take the test. We therefore think it right to provide that if a visitor takes up permanent residence here he will not escape the test merely by reason of having held a visitor's licence during the last ten years. We believe that the clause has merit, both from the point of view of safety and of easier administration, and we commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:

Amendments as to groups of vehicles covered by driving tests

"15.—(1) The classes or descriptions of vehicles which may be comprised in a licence granted from time to time by virtue of the passing of a prescribed test of competence to drive shall include not only any class or description for which the test was the prescribed test when it was passed but also—

1. (a) if the test was passed before the coming into operation of this section, any other class or description for which the test was sufficient at the coming into operation of this section,
2. (b) whenever the test was passed, any other class or description for which, by virtue of regulations under subsection (5) of section six of the Act of 1934, the test, or any other test declared by such regulations to be equivalent thereto, was sufficient at the time of the application for the licence, being a class or description to which this paragraph is applied by such regulations,
3. (c) whenever the test was passed, any other class or description which by virtue of this section has been comprised in a licence previously granted to the applicant.

(2) Where the holder of a licence under Part I of the Act of 1930 surrenders it and applies under section four of the Act of 1930 for a new licence, then if by virtue of this section he is entitled to the grant of a licence comprising any class or description of vehicles not comprised in the surrendered licence he shall, if he so requires, be granted a new licence on payment of a reduced fee of two shillings and sixpence; but a licence granted on payment of the reduced fee shall continue in force only for the period for which the surrendered licence would have continued if not surrendered.

(3) In this section the expression 'licence' means a licence to drive granted under Part I of the Act of 1930, and references in this section to a test sufficient at any time for a class or description of vehicles are references to a test which at that time was the prescribed test therefor or the passing which authorised the granting at that time of a licence comprising that class or description."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with a small technical point, and it also refers to driving tests. In the course of time different types of vehicles were amalgamated together for one test, which, of course, is natural; and I think it will happen in the future. Sometimes, after an amalgamation has taken place, those who took the test before the amalgamation may still have to do several tests afterwards. A case in point is that of a motor car and an agricultural tractor. Before 1948 they required separate tests. Since that time, they have been amalgamated, and if you qualify on a motor car you qualify equally on an agricultural tractor. However, those who qualified before 1948 have, in point of fact, still to do a second test. We feel that that is rather unnecessary and foolish. This clause has no more effect than to enable the present regulations to apply to drivers who took their test before 1948. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14:

Amendments as to provisional driving licences

14.—(1) Where application is made to a licensing authority for the grant under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 of a provisional licence with a view to the passing of a test under the said section five or under section six of the Act of 1934, then if the applicant holds a provisional licence or has held one during the period of twelve months ending on the date of coming into force of the licence applied for, and has held a previous provisional licence within the period of twelve months ending on the date of coming into force of the last provisional licence held by him, the licensing authority may refuse to grant the licence applied for unless either—

1. (a) the applicant has submitted himself to such a test as aforesaid during the currency of the last provisional licence held by him, or
2. (b) he satisfies the licensing authority that he has reasonable cause for not having done so,

and (in either case) before the date of the application for the licence he has applied to submit himself to such a test to be taken within six months after the date of the application for the licence.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after the end of paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remove the requirement to apply for the test before applying for a provisional licence in certain circumstances. I suggest that this requirement is most illogical where the applicant has satisfied the licensing authority that he has good cause for not having applied for the test during the currency of the previous licence. If the licence is refused, an applicant will not be able to take the test. Moreover, the applicant must arrange a day for the test without knowing whether he will acquire the necessary efficiency. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 11.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD HAWKE

This is an important Amendment to an important clause. The provisional licence system was intended to enable people to learn to drive in the expectation that they would take a test at the earliest possible moment. In the case of motor cars, it is most inconvenient to have to drive under "L" plates, though in the case of motor cycles the inconvenience is a small matter. The passing of a test is a trouble and an inconvenience to everybody, but in the case of cars, the inconvenience of driving under "L" plates far exceeds the inconvenience of having to pass the test. As regards motor cycles, however, the reverse is the case, and the result is that there are some motor cyclists who have no intention of passing the test so long as they can carry on under "L" plates; and many more are reluctant to face up to the trouble of arranging and passing a test, and continue to put off the evil day.

This is an abuse of the provisional licensing system, and that is the reason for the insertion of this clause in the Bill. We have put in certain time limits which are a little complicated, but the position of the driver who has a continuous provisional licence is quite a simple one. At the end of two licence periods—that is, twelve months under this Bill—when he comes to ask for a renewal he will have to prove that he has had good reason for not having passed the test, and he must book a test within the next six months. The last proviso is the one that my noble friend wants to leave out. If the sole criterion for renewal were the performance of the applicant in arranging tests in the past, there would be something in what my noble friend says but the fact that we have given an applicant a way out by showing reason for not taking a test is the point which I think tends to weaken his case, because we have definitely opened the field for the plausible story and it is the licensing authorities who will have the invidious task of judging the merits of the various excuses put forward. The licensing authorities are anxious to have their position fortified by the fact that the applicant will have to show that he has taken the trouble of booking a test for the future and what is more important, of having paid for that test.

To sum up, there are a considerable number of perpetual test-dodgers and we have dealt with them by a time limit, but we have to leave a loophole for genuine hardship. We are most anxious not to impose a great burden on the licensing authorities by leaving them to deal with too large a flock to separate into sheep and goats. It is no hardship for the genuine learner who obeys the spirit of the 1930 Act and tries to get rid of his "L" plates as soon as possible. But my noble friend is trying to remove one deterrent to test-dodging. The only reason he put forward was that the applicant felt he might not be ready. The provisional licence period under this Bill is increased to six months, so that after this Bill comes into operation he will have two periods of provisional licence of six months each, plus the forward period for arranging a licence—a total of something up to eighteen months from the time he obtained his first provisional licence to the point at which he has to take his test. That is not an unreasonable period in which to expect a man to have to try to take a test. I hope that my noble friend will not press this particular Amendment. I would point out to him that the provisions of this Bill can be put into operation piecemeal by the Minister, and it might be perfectly possible and, in fact, desirable to put into operation the lengthening of the provisional licence period before the other portion of the clause about which he complains.

LORD TEYNHAM

I appreciate the full explanation given by the noble Lord. I am not quite certain that it really meets my point. I realise the difficulties of dealing with the motor cycle learner, but I do not press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.54 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words from "grant" to the end of the subsection, and to insert instead: of provisional licences to drive for a period of three months) for the word 'three' there shall be substituted the word 'six'.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been set down to provide powers to increase the period for a provisional licence from three months to six. It will be seen that subsection (2) of this clause gives power to increase the period of the validity of the licence from three to six months as well as to increase the fee. It will be remembered that the present provisional licence is relatively four times as expensive as the substantive driving licence, and I suggest that power to double the fee because the licence would be varied to six months cannot be justified. It is the fact that the delay in arranging for applicants to take a driving test is frequently as much as three or four months, and often the provisional licence holder is obliged to take out an additional licence and, under this Bill, to pay twice as much for it. I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will not suggest that the object of the increased fee is to discourage learner drivers from continuing to drive on a provisional licence, because I am sure this result will be most unlikely. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 13, leave out from lines 13 to 17 and insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD HAWKE

My noble friend has correctly stated the object of his Amendment. I would point out that later on in this Bill the full licence is being extended to three years and the fee is being trebled, and we felt that when we were doubling the period of the provisional licence it was only reasonable to double the fee, too. The fee for the provisional licence was fixed in 1934, and sometimes your Lordships suggest that penalties fixed at that time should be increased. The rate will remain the same rate per month as in 1934. May I be excused a personal view, because I am one who, for the next ten or so years, will probably have to pay for a considerable number of provisional licences?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That is not our fault.

LORD HAWKE

The fact that I have the convenience of doing it only every six months instead of every three months I regard as an immense relief. Looking at it from my own purely personal point of view, I welcome this extension to six months and I do not regard the ten shillings as a great imposition. From the point of view of the Government, the Amendment of the noble Lord would lose us revenue, and it is not a proposal which I would be authorised to accept, for that reason alone. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I take it that the purport of what the noble Lord has said is that the purpose of the clause is to increase revenue. The noble Lord has not attempted to defend it in any sense of equity, because he cannot—

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was doing nothing but defend it in the sense of equity. It is not a question of increasing the revenue. I said the period had been doubled and that it is only fair to double the fee. The rate per month is exactly the same as before.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But when you double the fee you increase the licence from three to six months, and that saves administrative costs. All these things are done to save administrative costs. They cut down the expenditure and you put up the fee. I am not quarrelling with what the noble Lord is going to do, but he would be frank if he were to say that what the Government want to do is to increase the revenue, so they are putting up the fee and are also going to increase the fee for driving tests. The noble Lord is not playing quite fair with the public. This would be more in equity if the noble Lord could arrange for the driving test to be taken at once; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, pointed out, there is a delay of three to four months in taking a driving test, and the longer the noble Lord can delay the driving test the more he can increase the revenue and the less, pro rata, is his administrative expenditure. I think, to put it in the vernacular, that it is a "quick one." But the Government have to get £100 million from somewhere, and they might get a little out of the learner driver.

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord has been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That is why I know.

LORD HAWKE

If he really thinks that any Minister of Transport would risk the grave unpopularity of deliberately delaying the driving test in order to produce a few thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds for his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can only say that the Ministers must have been a very different breed in those days from what they are now. My noble friend Lord Teynham is trying to reduce the revenue. He is suggesting that the licence for six months should cost the same as the present one for three months, and I cannot accept that.

LORD TEYNHAM

I cannot quite follow the argument. It seems to me that the administrative cost would go down, and that it is taking a little more money out of the motorist. I cannot see it in any other way. It is a small matter and I do not want to press it to a Division, but I do not think the noble Lord has met my point. However I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that we have had a rather strenuous day, and as the rather contentious subject of parking meters and parking places is dealt with in the next clause, it might be convenient if we adjourned and started that subject tomorrow.

House resumed.

House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.