§ Committee stage resumed.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 35 to insert the following new clause:
… The Act of 1930 as amended by the Act of 1934 in relation to the provisions against third party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles shall, be amended so as to secure that the issue of a road licence shall be conditional upon the production of a certificate of insurance which is valid for the full period for which the road licence is issued.
§ The noble Lord said: May I, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archibald, who is still indisposed, move the Amendment standing in his name. As it is a little intricate, I have taken the liberty of writing it down so that there will be no fear of misrepresenting what my noble friend wants to say. What he says is this. It is submitted that there is a bad loophole in the provisions of the law, as it exists at present. If a person buys a car, say in February, 1956, he insures it and takes out the road licence. In December, 1956, he applies for the road licence for 1957, and produces a certificate of insurance which expires in February, 1957. As it is then a valid certificate of insurance the new road licence for 1957 is issued. But he may fail to renew the insurance in February, 1957, and run until December 31, 1957, uninsured and without check. It would therefore seem to be reasonable and logical to make the issue of a road licence conditional upon the production of a certificate of insurance valid for the full period for which the road licence is sought. That is the purport of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HAWKEThe noble Lord alarmed me somewhat when he said, "a serious loophole in the law." I wondered if he had "spotted" something that my advisers and I had not. I can assure him that we have "spotted" the point he makes. The idea of having the road licence and the insurance to synchronise is a nice, tidy idea, but people have often examined it and it has always been found to be impracticable. It would produce great difficulties in the insurance world. It would mean that all insurance policies would tend to fall due at particular periods when the road licences terminated. Again, if one changes one's vehicle the road licence follows the vehicle, whereas the insurance policy tends to follow the individual—so one would get another anomaly there.
If the noble Lord is frightened that the general public may not be protected through a person not taking out cover, there is the agreement between my right honourable friend the Minister and the insurance world that they will pay up if an uninsured driver does damage. There is no great evidence of evasion in taking out insurance policies. In fact, the penalties are so severe that we believe evasion is almost negligible. Moreover, the individual has to produce the certificate once a year, at any rate, before he gets a new road licence, and most companies send him a reminder when his policy falls due. I wish I could ease the convalescence of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, by accepting his Amendment, but I think this is another loser.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI suspected so, but what I am amazed at is the complacency with which the noble Lord tells your Lordships that the Government are conniving at a breach of the law—an absolute flagrant breach of the law—and to cover it up so that the citizen who may be injured by somebody who is not—
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHRunning a vehicle without third party insurance.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThen if he has not got one it is a breach of the law.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am not talking about whether he is caught or not. The law says that, for the protection of the ordinary citizen, nobody shall drive a motor vehicle without a policy of third party insurance. I have proved quite conclusively that he need give evidence only of having a third party insurance when he gets an Excise licence. If the third party insurance expires one month after he has got the licence, he can run for the rest of the time until that licence is due for renewal without a third party insurance. The noble Lord then comes to your Lordships' House, with great glee and self-satisfaction, and says, "But, of course, the citizen is not hurt, because the Minister has a private arrangement with the insurance companies to pay the damages out of charity." Have you ever heard of such a thing?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIs that the law?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNo, that is not the law. It is a private arrangement with the insurance companies.
§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDSNot legally binding.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNot legally binding.
Then the noble Lord, with all the self-satisfaction in the world, says that I have "backed a loser." I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether or not he really connives at the breaking of the law which states that you cannot drive a motor car or a motor vehicle on the road without a third party insurance. I have just illustrated to your Lordships that it can be done quite flagrantly and there is no check. The only check that is made upon whether you have a third party insurance or not is, of course, that you will stand the risk of being stopped by the police—that I agree. But the law does not say that you shall have one in case you are stopped by the police; the law says that you must have one, and the only check to see that you have one 502 is that you have to produce it to get an Excise licence. It is a shocking reply.
LORD HAWKEMay I ask, is the noble Lord adumbrating the theory that, with every law in the land which says the citizen must do something, the citizen must always prove to the Government in advance that he is complying with that law?—because that is what this theory amounts to.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNo, it does not.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhat I want to ask is: Are the Government conniving at the breaking of the law?
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTHThey are conniving and, because they are conniving, they have to go to the insurance companies and have a private arrangement with them under a bond scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, says is not legally binding. It would be as well if the Government looked at this matter.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI should think so.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am certainly prepared to look at anything which the noble Lori suggests, but he has used the word "conniving" in a sense in which I have never heard it used before. Taking the noble Lord's example of someone who applies in December and, under Section 39 of the Act of 1930, produces his insurance policy which expires at the end of January—that is the example—if he does not renew by the end of January he is liable to the criminal penalties, which are £50 or three months' imprisonment for a first offence. The fact that he has applied for his Excise licence does not affect the criminal liability at all.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORAnyone who does it deliberately is liable to that penalty. Take the example given of somebody who goes on for the rest of the year. I should think that, if he 503 did it deliberately, he would find himself not able to use a car because he would be in prison. That is what the Government stand for. That is not "conniving" at an offence; that is punishing an offence.
The other point that the noble Lord mentioned about the agreement is, of course, covered, because, where the offence is not discovered, the police will make their usual checks. For instance, as the noble Lord knows, a grazed mudguard in a public place means the risk of the policy being called for; and the motorist must produce it. But the agreement with the Minister was, I thought, a great public service. I should like to explain to the noble Lord that, before that agreement (which I think was made either during or just after the war), I have seen cases where some man or woman has lost a leg and been miserable for the rest of his or her life. He has brought proceedings only to find that there was no policy or I that there was a repudiation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, would corroborate every word I am saying. In a way they are the most heartrending cases I have ever seen.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHHear, hear!
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORTherefore, it was necessary to cover the situation, because, as the noble Lord knows, apart from deliberate evasion it is very easy to get into some difficulty.
May I take a case in which I happened to be umpire? A well-known film actress was injured in her car and her chauffeur was found to blame. It was a question whether she was a third party with regard to her own chauffeur. I was umpire. I decided she was. The case went to the High Court, the Judge upheld me; it went to the Court of Appeal, in which two Lords Justices found I was wrong and one that I was right. It then went to the House of Lords in which three Law Lords held that I was right, and two that I was wrong. I do not intrude my personal experience for no purpose. The relevance of that is the difficulty in which the lady who took out that policy found herself—whether she herself was covered. Similar cases have occurred with the public. That is why I think this agreement is really a most useful one. What I wanted to say to the noble Lord 504 was that there is no question of anyone being released from a criminal liability, and no question of the police being in the slightest degree less vigilant about people being insured because they happen to have been covered when they took out their Excise licence. I hope that, after that explanation, the noble Lord will not press the matter.
§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDSWhat I fail to understand is the objection to the new clause moved by my noble friend. I have not heard it. What is the objection to it? The Lord Chancellor has just spoken of a certain case—and I agree, of course, that there are a great many cases of this kind. There have been hundreds of such cases in the papers. In our own experience, these have been people who have been injured by drivers driving when uninsured, and here is surely a simple expedient whereby the issue of the road licence for the full period should be conditioned by the production of a certificate of insurance for that period. What is the difficulty about that? A certificate of insurance would have to be produced when applying for the road licence. I cannot see any difficulty about it. It seems to me a great injustice that a area number of people might be injured during the period when there was no insurance policy in force, and I should have thought this was a very simple expedient whereby the Government could ensure that those cases did not arise and that in all cases, before a road licence was issued, there must be in existence an insurance policy for the full period for which the licence ran. I should have thought that this was an opportunity to cure one of those things which cause many heartrending cases and which the Government now have it in their power, by accepting this new clause, to put right for all time.
LORD HAWKEI am sorry if I did not make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, because I shall have to deploy the same arguments again as I did before. I said that, for the sake of tidiness and convenience, I think people would like to see it done, but that it comes up against some very grave administrative difficulties—
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHFor whom?
LORD HAWKEThe difficulty of making the insurance companies synchronise with the licensing authorities would 505 mean that all the work of the motor insurance offices would be thrown on to particular periods, whereas at present it is spread out. That is a very considerable objection from the insurance companies' point of view. Then, when one changes a vehicle, the licence follows the vehicle, whereas the insurance policy tends to follow the individual.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIt does.
LORD HAWKESo that you would immediately get out of step with all the changed vehicles. Then we have got this extremely heavy criminal obligation on the insured to see that his policy is up to date. It is a very incautious man who disobeys this particular law. I pointed out that there was a final safeguard: that, if there was some reckless fool, the Minister had that agreement with the corn-parties; so that really the noble Lord's Amendment would achieve nothing, and would cause a great deal of inconvenience to the insurance world. There is one further point that occurred to me while the noble Lord was speaking. If the man is sufficiently criminal to wish to evade this law that he must have an insurance policy, what is to prevent his cancelling the policy as soon as he has taken out his licence? He can cancel his policy and get a rebate at any time. The Amendment does not provide for that, and I do not think it will improve the Bill at all.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI accept completely what the noble Lord has said; but the very fact that this fund, which is admirable, is such a good thing, shows that there is a considerable evasion. If there were not this evasion, why have the fund?
LORD HAWKEEven if there were one or two evasions, I think it would be only a just and proper protection of the general public. My information is that evasion is remarkably small.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHA fund like this is not run for one or two cases. There is no difficulty about this clause. It does not put any additional burden on the issuing officers dealing with road licences. They have nothing to do with it.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIt does, because they have to check the length of 506 the licence with the length of the insurance, which they do not have to do now. So that statement is not accurate.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThat is not a great burden.
§ TEE EARL OF SELKIRKBut it is something.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIt is a fact to-day that most or, at any rate, a considerable number, of insurance policies do not run with the car; they run with the individual. So every time I changed my car I should have to give more particulars. If my insurance policy ran with my car and I changed my car two or three times, I should have to go to my insurance company and get new cover. If I gave up driving my car, I could cancel my insurance and get a rebate on it. The argument that the noble Lord puts up is not at all sound. I will admit that there is no way of getting over the criminal intent of a man who simply takes out a policy one day' and cancels it the next. But the noble Lord's argument does not hold water in that respect, because what maniac would do that? He would lose; he does not get 364 days' rebate. His excursion into that operation would prove rather expensive.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI say that there are many people who can get "six months" without having a third party insurance. Where human life is at stake and where, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is great hardship, do not think this is an unreasonable or a very heavy burden to put on the insurance companies, whose profits, so far as I can see, would still stand the additional administrative cost. We are now trying to tighten up the situation, and this is the time to make this change. I give the noble Lord one more chance. Will he accept this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend?
LORD HAWKEWe will not accept the Amendment, but perhaps we can have some consultation if tie noble Lord can substantiate his claim that there is a considerable evasion of this insurance law whereby hardship is being caused. We will certainly look into it then.
§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDSWould the noble Lord be good enough to let my noble friend know what claims have been made in the past year on this official or unofficial agreement made by the Government with the insurance companies? Presumably that is perfectly easy to ascertain and the information could be available within a couple of days. Could the noble Lord ascertain those facts, perhaps from the secretary of the insurance companies group, and could he let my noble friend have them?
LORD HAWKEI will certainly make inquiries to see whether I can produce those figures or not. The noble Lord said there were a lot of cases. I should like him to produce his figures.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHOf course you would. You would like me to do your job for you.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKWe should like you to substantiate your statement.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYou are resisting an Amendment on the ground that it would cause great administrative difficulties with the insurance companies. I want to know what administrative difficulties there are. Perhaps the noble Lord will obtain from the insurance companies a report—because he cannot tell me—of what administrative difficulties there may be and how many cases they have had to deal with. On that undertaking I will ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 7.6 p.m.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:
. The movement upon the highway of any motor vehicle which together with its load exceeds twelve feet in width or sixty feet in length shall he prohibited during the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and when such vehicle and load is moved upon the highway during' the hours of darkness' as laid down in the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, it shall, in addition to the existing requirements as regards lighting, carry a red light clearly showing each ten feet of its length on both sides of the vehicle and load.
§ The noble Lord said: I am glad to bring this Amendment forward again, because I expect I shall have the pleasure of debating it for only a minute or two 508 with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. This concerns the eternal problem of the abnormal load. The Committee may remember that I put down a Question in your Lordships' House, to ask the Government whether they would prohibit the movement of these abnormal loads during certain hours. The noble Lord, in one of those courteous replies which we always get from him, pointed out that while the Government had a certain amount of sympathy with me, one of the difficulties was that the police did not like these vehicles to travel at night. My object was to get them off the road during the day, because it is during the day that the other traffic is at its peak.
§
I made some inquiries of various police authorities and they said, "It is true, up to a point, because we should not like these abnormal loads to travel over the roads of the country at night if they were lighted only as they are now." So I have put down this Amendment. I have put the load on the high side, so it is not too restrictive. I say in my Amendment:
… any motor vehicle which together with its load exceeds twelve feet in width or sixty feet in length shall he prohibited during the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
§ Then I have put in a proviso: that when it is moved during the hours of darkness it shall have augmented lighting. The difficulty is not at the front and rear of a sixty-foot long load; it is at the side. I have suggested that it shall be a regulation for such vehicles to have a red light at every ten feet along both sides of the vehicle. I hope that my noble friend will really think about this matter. I understand that the Minister is contemplating some further regulation. This could be done as an experiment through the coming holiday season, when the roads will be jammed with traffic. Consider the Birmingham area. Thousands of motor coaches will be coming from Birmingham during the holiday weeks before us, and going down to the South Coast resorts. There should be a tightening up in this respect.
§ Your Lordships will remember the Question I asked about ninety-feet tanks that were coming through the centre of England, from Durham right down the A.40, through the City of Oxford, and down to Newbury. I drew the noble Lord's attention to a vehicle that, on the same afternoon, at the peak of the traffic, was lodged in The High at Oxford. That 509 particular vehicle, with an abnormal load 16 feet 7 inches high, an enormous thing, was stuck in the middle of The High at Oxford and was on its way from Colchester to Liverpool. How, when it was going from Colchester to Liverpool, it managed to end up in Oxford, I do not know. The regulation for these abnormal loads does not answer as well as it should. They go through cities and big towns at peak periods, such as Saturday afternoons, causing terrific congestion. I suggest to the noble Lord that one of the methods we might try to alleviate this problem is to lay it down that these abnormal loads, 12 feet in width and 60 feet and upwards in length, should travel on the roads only at night, with augmented lighting. That is the simple purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ LORD MANCROFTQueen Mary had "Calais" written on her heart, and I believe the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be found to have "single indivisible abnormal loads" written on his. I would assure the noble Lord that I sympathise with him, and so does my right honourable friend the Minister, who is doing his best to find a solution to this problem. He has sent out a lot of questions to interested parties and he is now pondering the replies. We must face the fact that some of these loads have got to go by road. They are too big to go under the railway bridges and they are too big to move by sea or canal. But we have to find some means of reducing the undoubted annoyance that they cause on the roads. We have had discussions and we asked the police how they would react to the movement of these loads at night. Admittedly, the noble Lord's Amendment restricts this to the very big ones, and we originally asked the police about them all. We found that the chief constables were strongly opposed to it. The question of lights, which the noble Lord raises in his Amendment, had not come into it then.
I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to agree to his Amendment—and, in the face of police objections, I could not possibly do so—as fully as the noble Lord wants. But I am prepared to do anything I can to help him and my right honourable friend the Minister in 510 his attempts to solve this problem. I will try to draw up an Amendment for the next stage that will include his lighting point or get somewhere near it. We will try that as an experiment and will see whether the additional lighting helps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas suggests. I must say, in all conscience, that it is very difficult to drive these abnormal loads in broad daylight; but to do it in darkness at night on twisting roads involves great danger, and I think the arguments of the chief constables must be accepted and appreciated. We will see if some good can be done by this new lighting proposal, and if it is a success we can go further forward. I hope that that slight acceptance of his Amendment may at least help my noble friend and help to solve the problem.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am most grateful. I think it is very helpful. When I spoke to the police, they said that they had never been asked about lighting. They said it would put a different complexion on it if there were additional lighting. The danger at night is mitigated because these loads travel at only about 12 miles an hour; they are allowed to travel at only about 12 miles an hour. Where there is an absence of traffic on the road they can have real headlights and blaze away without any risk of dazzle. I know we cannot find complete answer, but let us at least be able to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think this does it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his undertaking, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 36 [New lighting on trunk and classified roads not to impose speed limit automatically]:
§ 7.15 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (2), to leave out the first four lines and to insert instead:
>"(2) As respect, any length of road in a built-up area to which this subsection applies, subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1934 shall have effect with the substitution for the limit of speed to be observed under that section of a limit of speed of forty miles per hour.
(3) The last foregoing subsection shall apply to any length of road to which it is applied by a direction given by the authority having power to give as respects that length of road a direction that it shall he deemed not to be a road in a built-up area, but the giving, revocation or variation thereof shall be subject to
511
the like provisions as the giving, revocation or variation by that authority of such a direction as is last mentioned.
(4) Subsection (3) of section one of the Act of 1934 (which empowers the Minister, by order approved by Parliament, to increase or reduce the general speed limit in built-up areas) shall apply in relation to subsection (2) of this section, and in subsection (7) of the said section one (which relates to traffic signs), in paragraph (a), for the words from 'the places' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words'.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment arises from a recommendation of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which recommended the introduction of 40 m.p.h. speed limits as an experiment. They recommended this because it is more helpful in mixed traffic. So far as London is concerned, the Minister already has powers to do it. I think I can say that the chief reasons which make this introduction desirable is that by obtaining a steady flow of traffic at the same speed it is both safe for users of the road and economical for moving traffic on a given carriageway. Moreover, it is hoped that by this introduction the 30 m.p.h. limit itself will be more readily observed and enforced, and I am informed that the police are confident that it will be very much easier to enforce 40 m.p.h. on certain roads than it is 30 m.p.h. at the present time.
§ All this clause seeks to do, and it seems logical, is to extend that power should the Minister wish to do so, to areas outside London. In order to make the position clear, may I explain the position as at the present time outside London. The Minister may de-restrict on his own fiat any area, but he cannot restrict. The local authority, however, can either restrict or de-restrict, but only with the consent of the Minister. That is the law as it stands at present. What we propose to do, and again I make it clear that this applies only outside London, which is governed by the London Traffic Act of 1924, is to say that on the trunk roads outside London the Minister may impose a 40 m.p.h. limit, instead of de-restricting. That is to say, instead of having de-restriction, which means no speed limit at all, he can change 30 m.p.h. into 40 m.p.h. On other roads, the local authority can impose 40 m.p.h. instead of de-restricting, which, of course, is subject to confirmation. Any extension of the 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. limit in future will 512 depend on the application of the local authority, and it is subject to confirmation by the Minister and, indeed, to consultation with the police.
§ I am not going to suggest—and I want to make it quite clear that there is no such suggestion—using this power generally except in very limited and definite places, but I believe that in such places it will be of value for the two purposes which I have suggested—to improve the flow of traffic and, I think, to improve safety. If the Amendment commends itself to your Lordships, I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ EARL HOWEOnly to-day, I believe, a new volume has appeared, Report on Thirty Miles an Hour Speed Limits in the London Traffic Area which deals with the question of differential speed limits. The whole of this question has been referred to various authorities—the police, the local authorities, the London County Council, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Institution of Municipal Engineers, the Road Research Laboratory, the British Transport Commission, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the motoring organisations, the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Pedestrians' Association and so on. So far as I can see, from a study of this publication, the majority of opinions are against this proposal. Some of the most important organisations—including the Transport and General Workers' Union for example—are against it. From a practical point of view, I suggest that a differential speed limit is a perfectly appalling idea. One can see it in operation in France. Anyone who has ever motored in that country knows what it means. It is subject to strong practical objection.
Suppose that you are driving a vehicle along a road upon which there is fairly heavy traffic—and on our roads the traffic is nearly always pretty heavy. You come to a restricted road, and you may easily miss seeing the sign because a vehicle gets in the way. I have already asked the noble Earl whether it would be possible to repeat the restriction sign. I hope that he will be able to see that that is done. That will certainly help 513 drivers to realise that they are in a restricted area and to observe the law. But to he able to go along and say with certainty that you have seen quite clearly whether a sign is marked "30" or "40" would, I think, be very difficult. Indeed, it is dreadful to think of the uncertainty which there would certainly be. In France it is almost impossible to keep track of the signs outside the little villages. They vary from "40" to "50" and "30", and it is hopeless to try to note them with certainty.
Moreover, I do not believe it makes for safety. We all know of the 30 m.p.h. limit we have to-day. When you catch sight of the sign you do not have to look at it twice in order to see the figure upon it—you have not to distinguish whether that figure is "30" or "40". And you do your best to observe the restriction. The motoring organisations are strongly against this proposal, and I suggest to any of your Lordships who is interested that if he can get this publication in the Printed Paper Office (I suppose that is possible) he will find it well worth his while to study it. And he will gather from it that this proposal has very few friends. I hope that we shall not agree to it. I do not like it at all, and a great many people to whom I have spoken do not like it any better than I do. I have not put down an Amendment with regard to this clause, but I certainly shall do so at a later stage of the Bill if the Minister says that he is going ahead with it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHI am very much interested in what the noble Earl has said. Personally, I can see that it can be argued that there can be a considerable increase in safety in some areas if a more constant flow of traffic can be maintained. It follows that if you start by experiment, you want to be exceedingly careful what areas you include in that experiment. The Pedestrians' Association are very much concerned about the general question, and, with it in mind, I have myself been keeping my eyes open in the last few weeks with a view to determining how this proposal, if adopted, would he likely to operate in certain cases. I find that pedestrians step off a pavement within a reasonable distance as they see a vehicle approaching, believing that it will not reach them until a few seconds have elapsed. If the permitted speeds are 514 increased it is felt that there will be a good deal of difficulty, at least for some time, for pedestrians to avoid accidents, because there will have to be some mental and psychological readjustment to enable them to appreciate how long a period they have in which to step off the pavement and get over the road before the approaching vehicle reaches the spot where they are crossing.
I should like to know what the Government's intentions are. I suppose that they will authorise regulations, some direct and some by local authorities, as to what vehicles can travel in these experimental areas at these specified speeds. I must say that I have seen some extraordinary instances of heavily loaded vehicles exceeding 40 miles per hour in places adjacent to built-up areas. That brings up the question of safety, not merely in relation to the speed of the vehicle concerned but to the braking power which is involved. I have strong doubts whether, unless there are greater restrictions on the speed at which heavy vehicles can travel, instead of increasing safety you will not be reducing it. So much depends on the kind of regulations put into operation and the place selected for experiment. I would not seek to avoid a debate on this clause. I stall he most interested to hear what the Government have to say upon it, and to see what may be proposed by the noble Earl at a later stage and then to examine it more carefully.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI have mixed feelings about this matter. I have some sympathy with the noble Earl, because I hold most clearly that one of the fundamentals of successful traffic control is to get traffic travelling at the same speed. May I just draw upon the experience which I had when studying this problem in America? In America they have far more speed limits than we have in this country, and they apply to every type of vehicle. What happens there is that they do away with what is one of the most accident-prone actions in this country—that is overtaking. Overtaking is one of the greatest contributory factors in accidents. I do not know whether this would fulfil the purpose which my noble friend, and also Lord Howe, have in mind. You cannot switch suddenly from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles art hour and back again. With the 515 best intentions in the world we all miss seeing the "30" on our road signs sometimes, and then we have to look for the disc on the lamp post—and sometimes they are turned round the wrong way, or have been lost.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that this is an experiment. How long is the experiment to last? Where is it to take place? I have not seen the document which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has produced. If we pass this clause now we do not stand much chance of doing anything on the Report stage. I suppose we can move to leave it out at the Report stage if we do not like it. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would like to do. We have not had much chance of hearing different opinions expressed, and I should like to be guided by other folk. I can see virtue in this proposal and I can also see the drawbacks. One virtue which I can see in it has been mentioned by the noble Earl—I think I caught his words aright. He said that the police say they will be able to enforce the 40 m.p.h. speed limit better than they can enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIn the right places, I think. Not just necessarily anywhere.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhat do they call the right places?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKIf I may venture to do so, I put it in this way: in the places recommended in this Report. There are certain specific recommendations as to various places where it, is thought that it should be done. I understand that the police think that in these places they will be able to enforce the rule better.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMay I ask this question? If this 40 m.p.h. limit is to operate only in certain specific places, do those who have produced the Report think that that will make a major contribution to the better flow of traffic, and therefore to the better control of traffic?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKYes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIn that case I am prepared to agree with this, And study the Report, which only 516 came out a week ago—I am sorry that I have not acquainted myself with it—and return to this matter on Report stage, when perhaps we shall take this item at a more convenient hour. I should like to have some more opinions because my mind is fluid upon it.
§ EARL HOWEI feel that there is great force in what the noble Lord has said, and if the noble Earl could agree to giving time to consider this matter on Report, I think it would be as well. I received my copy of this Report only to-day. Obviously, it is of considerable importance and we ought to have a chance of considering it. Perhaps the noble Earl could agree to have a fairly full discussion on this matter on Report stage.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am grateful to hear the views of noble Lords on this important matter. It is true that we are not committing ourselves to anything; it merely allows the possibility —and does not even do that in London, because the power exists as it is. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about conditions in France; I think they are appalling. I hope that if we had anywhere to introduce something of this sort we would mark it up much better than the extremely varied speed limits are marked in French towns. I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, when he said that this proposal must be carried out with great care. There are only certain places where it can be done, but I think it would be a pity to exclude the possibility of doing it there. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put his finger on probably one of the biggest causes of danger on the road—that is, overtaking. If we could invent a way of avoiding overtaking, as they have in America, then I think we would have made a contribution to the reduction of accidents—I will not use the word "major" before contribution, because I am reluctant to say that anything is a major contribution; I will say that it would be a contribution which I think should reduce accidents. I shall certainly be glad to discuss this matter at much fuller length on Report stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 45, at end insert "and what limit of speed is to be observed where a length of road is deemed to be such a road; and'". —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 37 agreed to.
§ 7.34 p.m.
§ LORD HAMPTON moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause:
§ Removal of trees, etc., from highway
§ " .—(1) If any tree fence wall bank slope cutting or structure or any part thereof shall fall on or across any highway repairable by the inhabitants at large so that obstruction is caused or likely to be caused to persons or vehicles using such highway, the highway authority may remove and pending such removal may fence light and watch the same and recover the reasonable cost of so doing from the owner thereof or, if such owner is not in beneficial occupation of the land upon which such tree fence wall bank slope emitting or structure or any part thereof was situate, from the occupier thereof:
§ Provided that the highway authority shall fence light and watch any such obstruction caused as aforesaid only if in their opinion it is impracticable to remove the same duning the hours of daylight on the day on which it fell and it shall in any case be the duty of the highway authority to remove the same without unreasonable delay:
§ Provided further that the highway authority shall if time permits give notice to such owner or occupier as the case may he of any such tree fence wall hank slope cutting or stricture or part thereof before removing the same and in any other case shall give notice of such removal to such owner or occupier as soon as is practicable.
§ (2) In this section the expression 'highway' includes any street lane road public path footway alley or passage or any square or court irrespective of whether the street road or other thing in question is a thoroughfare or not."
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows rather different lines from those which we have been pursuing up to date, and I shall take very little time over it. I hope your Lordships will agree that it has substance and is relevant to greater safety on the roads. It is designed to fill a gap in the existing law and to provide local highway authorities with a much needed power to remove and, pending removal, to light and watch, obstructions falling across a repairable highway from adjoining land, and to recover from the owner or occupier the cost of so doing. At present, when a fallen tree, a collapsed wall, a piece of structure or anything of that kind, especially slips of earth from 518 a bank or slope, which often happens on the moorlands, causes an obstruction, the cost of removing and, in the meantime, of watching and lighting the obstruction tends to fall unjustly on the ratepayers.
§ I believe that proceedings can be taken under Section 72 of the Highway Act, 1835—a rather ancient one—which makes it an offence in any way wilfully to obstruct the free passage on any highway. But to succeed in such proceedings it is necessary to prove that the obstruction was wilful. There was a case Gully v. Smith, 1883, in which it was held that where, through the collapse of a wall owned by an adjoining landowner, a quantity of stone and soil had fallen upon a highway, the landowner was rightly convicted of wilful obstruction when, having been given notice to remove it, he failed to do so. In practice, therefore, it is often the case that the whole cost of lighting and removing an obstruction falls quite unjustly upon the ratepayers.
§ Sometimes it is evident that unless a tree is felled or a wall or a bank repaired a serious obstruction, not to mention the danger to human life, will sooner or later arise. In such cases, the highway authority have no statutory power to require the owner to take preventive action, though it is understood that it is not unusual for the highway authority who become aware of the potential obstruction or danger to bring the matter to the owner's notice and to request him to fell the tree or repair the wall, as the case may be, thus making it easier for the authority to prove wilful obstruction should the owner ignore the warning. This position, however, is eminently unsatisfactory, and there is a strongly felt need for some statutory provision on the lines of the new clause suggested by the County Councils Association.
§ This clause is based on a provision already approved by Parliament and contained in Section 25 of the Glamorgan County Council Act, 1952. However, the clause I am suggesting differs from the Glamorgan enactment in its reference to banks, slopes and cuttings. Such reference is considered essential in view of representations which the Association have received from the Devon and Somerset County Councils, who have pointed out: that slips of earth and stone Facings front steep banks in cuttings and also front stone walls on banks in moorland areas are a frequent source of trouble in those 519 counties, especially after periods of heavy rain or frost. The wording of the Glamorgan enactment, which relates only to "any tree, fence, wall or structure," would not be wide enough to cover obstructions caused in this way.
§
The clause would empower a highway authority, where an obstruction of the kind referred to in subsection (1) is caused, or is likely to be caused, to remove the same, and, pending such removal, to fence, light and watch the same and to recover the reasonable cost of so doing from the owner or occupier. Since the suggested clause was first put down, it has been found that the first two provisos in subsection (1) contain a flaw, in that should a tree or other obstruction fall across a road in the early hours of the morning, the fact that it would be practicable to remove it during the hours of daylight of that day would preclude the highway authority from fencing, lighting and watching it during the remaining hours of darkness before dawn on that day. Therefore, it is suggested that the following proviso should be substituted:
Provided that where any such tree, fence, wall, bank, slope, cutting or structure or part thereof shall fall across a highway during the hours of daylight, the highway authority may fence, light and watch the same only if, in their opinion, it is impracticable to remove the same during the hours of daylight on that day; and it shall in any case be the duty of the highway authority, in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, to remove the same without unreasonable delay.
The effect of this substituted proviso would be (a) to make it clear that the highway authority, if they decide to exercise their powers to remove an obstruction, must act expeditiously; and (b) to preclude the highway authority from involving an owner in the expense of lighting and watching in cases where they could reasonably be expected to remove the obstruction during the day on which it fell.
§ The second proviso in subsection (1) requires the highway authority, in cases where there is no immediate urgency, to give notice to the owner or occupier before attempting to remove the obstruction; and, in cases where this cannot reasonably be done, to give notice to the owner or occupier as soon afterwards as is practicable that the removal has been effected. As I have said, this is rather a new departure from what we have been 520 discussing, but there is already Parliamentary authority for an enactment of this kind; and where it has been done once, in one Corporation Bill, it seems only logical and sound that it should become universal throughout the country. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Hampton.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe noble Lord has said that this is rather a departure from what we have been discussing. He is here making a somewhat far-reaching proposal. I am not aware that there is any strong evidence that local authorities are lacking in power either to remove or to light any obstruction which comes on to their highway. Therefore the whole of this clause, from a substantive point of view, seems to be an endeavour by the local authorities to charge a larger sum of money to the neighbouring landlords. So far as I can see, that is almost the whole effect of the clause. As the noble Lord said, under the 1835 Act the owner may be charged with wilful obstruction; and the noble Lord is probably correct in saying that it has not happened often. I feel that this would make a rather fundamental change in the obligation of landlords, and I would rather not do this until we have had some consultation whether this is the best way of doing it. I do not think—and I say this with respect to the noble Lord—that the local authorities are meeting any difficulty at the present time in either lighting or removing any obstruction which may exist on the highway. If the noble Lord has any evidence of that, I should be only too glad to hear of it.
I hope he will not press the Amendment, because it is far-reaching, and I feel that it should go into a Bill of a slightly different character. As I see it, it is not a safety measure; it deals with the relative rights of landlords and highway authorities rather than with matters of greater safety. Frankly, there is no element of greater safety here. Local authorities have all the powers they require. The only thing they are asking here is to be able to charge the expense of using those powers on the local landlords. While I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing, I would rather not recommend an alteration of this sort to the Committee without a good deal 521 more consultation than has yet been possible. If the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment now, I should be glad to discuss the matter with him further.
LORD HAMPTONI am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that. But there is the case that if an obstruction occurs through the remissness, say, of a property owner in not taking care of a dangerous tree that overhangs the road, and which he knows to be dangerous, the cost of watching, lighting and removal falls on the unfortunate ratepayer. After all, the ratepayer has plenty on his plate already. This is not something that would occur often, but if there is remissness on the part of an owner of an offending tree, wall, hedge or fence he should pay any costs incurred in the removal.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe noble Lord is carrying it much further than that. He is putting an absolute liability on the landowner to pay for anything, no matter whether there is a storm, a hurricane or what happens. I do net say that it is wrong, but it is a big step which should not he undertaken without further consultation.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI will certainly look at it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 38 agreed to.
§ 7.46 p.m.
§ LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
§ Taking pedal cycle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence
§ "Section twenty-eight of the Act c f 1930 (which penalises taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other authority) shall apply to persons taking bicycles and tricycles, not being motor vehicles, as it applies to persons taking and driving away motor vehicles, and reference in that enactment to motor vehicles shall be construed accordingly."
§ The noble Lord said: When the Bill was being debated in another place an Amendment was put on the Marshalled List practically identical with this one, and I feel some diffidence in rising to 522 move it again. I can see certain difficulties. The first is that one does not like to be party to the making of a new offence; the second is that the offence will be somewhat difficult to prove; the third is that bicycle stealing is not an easy thing to identify. But I did take courage to-day, because I saw in The Times that bicycle thefts had gone up by about 30 per cent. in the first five months of the year. So one did come down to the question of whether a person was going to steal a bicycle, or was just borrowing it to go somewhere.
§ What really worried me bout this was that, when the matter was debated in another place in January or February, last, the Minister said in reply that it could be dealt with by by-laws. That seemed to me a thoroughly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this offence. Surely, it would be an absurd situation if one could take a bicycle with impunity in Cambridge, where I spent a certain amount of my youth, but that if I went to Oxford, where the noble Lord opposite spent sonic of his youth, I should be fined, presumably, for the same kind of thing. Surely, by-laws are meant to deal with purely local conditions, which may be parallel in other places but are not general I would rather see this particular act of taking a bicycle without consent not an offence at all or else made an offence punishable over the whole country. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI should like to lend my support to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, if only on the grounds of logic and equity. For the first time, under Clause 11 of this Bill, we are allowing cyclists to come into the fold of road offenders vim can be penalised. Clause 11 sets out the application of the enactment to pedal cyclists guilty of dangerous and reckless driving. If they are going to have all the penalties, why should not they have at least some of the protection? If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is going to reply, I am sure that will readily appeal to his logical mind. I can see no greater difficulty in apprehending a bicycle thief than of apprehending a cyclist who rides recklessly or dangerously. When we are talking about difficulties of enforcement 523 we have a few difficulties facing the police under Clause 11. What is one more among so many? I believe that there is a great deal of logic in this Amendment and I hope that it will receive the noble Lord's sympathetic reply.
§ LORD CONESFORDIt does not seem to me to be quite so simple as the noble Lord has just made out. If a man is riding a bicycle recklessly, you can proceed against him on that ground without having to investigate the ownership of the machine. Although I do not differ from either of the noble Lords on the reprehensible character of this offence, however common it may be in university cities, I think there may be a certain amount of difficulty owing to the difficulty of identifying bicycles. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that in those countries where they have succeeded in making this an offence a bicycle is subject to registration and has to bear a number. I think that may be involved if this Amendment is pressed.
§ LORD MANCROFTThe noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is proposing the most sweeping change in the law in suggesting that the taking of a pedal cycle without the owners' consent or authority should be an offence. If this Amendment were passed and were made retrospective, I think that probably every single Member of your Lordships' House would, at some time or another, have been guilty of several offences. I agree that it is a reprehensible thing to do, and may in many cases cause real hardship. Before we pass into law a clause such as this, we should have to think very carefully whether it is worth while. It would mean creating a new criminal offence, which is always a dangerous thing to do unless there is a real evil which requires correction; and that I beg leave to doubt. The noble Lord emphasised the difficulty of tracing the bicycle and of deciding whether the rider was a genuine borrower or a genuine bicycle thief. There is always the risk that if something is not regarded as reprehensible morally, the law will come into disrepute pretty quickly. "Scrounging" is an unpleasant thing, but if you carry the law to the ultimate end it will do more harm than good.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, spoke rather disparagingly of the use of by- 524 laws. I was going to suggest that that might be a solution in places such as Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Winchester, Aldershot, or possibly "Narkover," and places where this offence might be particularly prevalent. I do not see why the noble Lord is so ill-disposed towards the by-laws. It has been done in Devon, because the Devon County Council found some particular need for it; and the Home Secretary confirmed it. My right honourable friend will be quite prepared to consider other cases if it is thought to be a suitable solution. I cannot raise much enthusiasm for this idea of creating a new crime, however serious and widespread the practice may be, as it would be difficult to enforce. It would mean a lot of work for the police and would tend to bring both the police and the law into disrepute. There is another solution which I will offer to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and that is to get a good padlock.
§ LORD AMULREEThe noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has entirely convinced me, as I expected he would and as I intended he should, that it would not be a good thing to make this Amendment part of the Bill. Therefore, I propose to withdraw it. But I was rather shocked that he should defend it by making it a partial crime. What I was hoping he might say was that it was a form of offence that should not be dealt with by law at all and, therefore, that his right honourable friend would not encourage local authorities to propose by-laws to that end. That was the real purpose of my moving the Amendment, and although I am perfectly prepared to withdraw it, I am extremely disappointed about what he has said concerning by-laws.
§ Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.
§ Clause 39 agreed to.
§ Clause 40 [Duration of driving licences and fees therefor]:
§ 7.55 p.m.
LORD WALERANI beg to move the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Teynham. Clause 40 increases the fee for driving licences from 5s. to 15s., and it also increases from one to three years the period during which the driving licence is valid. I am sure that the increase in the fee is intended to cover the administrative costs of issuing the driving licence. Surely, the increased period of the driving licence 525 from one to three years will, as it is issued only once in three years, instead of once a year, considerably lower those administrative costs and simplify the whole of the administrative procedure. I suggest that trebling the cost is going too far. My noble friend Lord Teynham has proposed 10s., which would amply cover the present-day increase in costs for issuing licences. Also 10s. is a much easier sum to handle when it is being paid in. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Waleran.)
§ LORD MANCROFTI agree that the administrative work is lessened by the fact that the licence is now issued for three years, but it costs 5s. for one year and the driver is getting three years' worth of licence, so it is only fair that he should pay 15s. for it—provided the noble Lord was not thinking solely of the administrative costs involved. I am afraid that is where the noble Lord and I must differ, because this charge was introduced only on the understanding that there must not be any loss to the Exchequer. I quite see the noble Lord's point, and I think his logic is good. A very small sum is involved, and I do not think there is great hardship. I would add that the price of 5s. was fixed in 1903, when the value of money was slightly different, so I do not think the licence holder is coming out of it too badly, and the Treasury are getting a little more money.
LORD WALERANI am not happy with the answer, because your Lordships will remember you once got a decent-looking licence. To-day, one gets a horrible piece of paper which curls up in three months. I should not have thought the actual cost was over 10s.
§ EARL HOWEIs the argument not suspect from another angle? Is not one of our troubles to-day the amount of Government expenditure, and the increase in taxation? Is it not an inflationary tendency? Surely, we can have this minor concession. The Government have not given us much so far, so could they not give us this one?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 40 agreed to.
526
§
LORD SWAYTHLING moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:
As from the first day of January, 1957, Regulation 17 of the Diving Licences Regulations, 1950 (which requires the holder of a driving licence to sign it in ink with his usual signature) shall cease to have effect.
The noble Lord said: I understand that the original reason why holders of driving licences were required to sign them was to make sure that the licence was not being used by the wrongful owner. It seems to me that the police constable who might stop a driver is not an expert in handwriting, and would have difficulty in comparing a signature on the licence with the signature given him on a piece of paper by the man he stopped, to prove that he was not the owner of the licence. Also, on inquiry, I have failed to learn of any cases where this signature has been used to identify the user of a driving licence.
§ It seems to me, therefore, that, if there is no actual advantage in having it signed, it is really an imposition to have a regulation which has penalties attached to it for the millions—or at any rate, thousands—of holders of driving licences who do not always remember to sign them when they take them out. It seems to me that, although the licences are now to he issued for three years, the point still holds good. One may easily forget to sign a new licence. If there is no advantage accruing to it, this regulation might well be rescinded.
§ LORD MANCROFTThe practice of signing one's driving licence has been in existence for about twenty-five years. I do not think it has caused any intolerable hardship. I have not heard stories of thousands of angry and ill-judged licence holders complaining about it. It acts as a safeguard if there is any possibility of a transfer of the licence to a wrongful holder. The police find it effective. If it were a great hardship, one might possibly consider some other plan but I do not think it does very much harm. It is certainly a safeguard against something which we do not want to happen, the free transfer of licences between people who should not awn them. That is all I have to say on that point. I could not look sympathetically upon this Amendment from the technical point, either. It is not really appropriate to suggest the amendment of a regulation 527 by an Act of Parliament. That is the first argument upon which I base the strength of the case for rejection of the Amendment.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGWill the noble Lord tell me whether he knows of these signatures having been used to check these transfers, such as he suggests?
§ LORD MANCROFTI cannot give the noble Lord any information on that in the way of examples, but I cannot imagine that the police would welcome the retention of this provision if they had not found it useful in the twenty-five years it has been in existence. If it were no use at all, we should have heard about it. I will find out about that.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGIn view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMany farmers, particularly small farmers, have one tractor and one farm goods vehicle, such as a Landrover, which they use to pull farm trailers. It is considerably inconvenient to them that, whenever a farm trailer is pulled by a different vehicle in their own ownership, they have to alter the number plate at the rear of the farm trailer. I am sure it would be a great boon to farmers if this new clause could be inserted in the Bill, with the proviso in the clause that the vehicle towing the trailer has to be in the ownership of the farmer. The fact that the owner of the vehicle could easily he traced by the number would justify the inclusion of this clause. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
(" . As from the first day of January, 1957, the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of Regulation 23 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1955 (which permits the rearmost vehicle drawn by a restricted vehicle to exhibit a registration mark of any other restricted vehicle in the same ownership) shall extend and apply to all farmers goods vehicles as defined in the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949.")—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD HAWKEWe all want to try to make the work of farmers as simple as 528 possible. It was only last year that we made a considerable concession in this direction, because we made it possible for those vehicles which do not run any great distance on the road—in fact, tractors—to tow miscellaneous trailers without matching number plates. That was intended to be a special help for the hay harvest, silage making, and so on. The noble Lord wants to extend this now to all farmers' goods vehicles. If he does that, we shall be getting more into the realms of ordinary goods vehicles on the road. We do not see why the farmer should be treated any better in this respect than other road users who have the same problem. If we made the concession to farmers, there is no question but that other people would expect the same thing done for them. We do not think that it would be desirable to have a big breach in the existing practice in that way because, from the point of view of police work, in the case of accidents or a breach of the law, it is rather important that one should be able to identify the vehicle and the driver from the fleeting glimpse that one may get of the number.
I wonder, too, whether it would be of great help to many farmers. There are probably many farms which have only one trailer, in which case it has the same number plate as is on the vehicle that usually tows it. If it were a widely sought after concession, we believe that the National Farmers' Union, who have never been very backward in asking for things, would have asked for it, but so far as we know, the National Farmers' Union have not yet done so. I should have liked to be able to accept an Amendment from the noble Lord because he does not often put them down, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGThe noble Lord mentioned the hay harvest and silage making. A farmer often has only one tractor, but he may have a Landrover which he uses to tow his trailer or trailers for the hay harvest. It would, no doubt, be a great boon to him to be able to use the tractor or the Landrover in this manner. However, if the noble Lord cannot see his way to accepting the Amendment for the reasons he has given, I beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.
529§ Clause 46 [Interpretation]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment defines "bridleway" and "footpath", which is necessary for the new Clause 13. It is in line with the definition already in the Statute Book in the National Parks Act. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 38, line 8, at end insert—
("'bridleway' means a way over which the public have the following, but no other rights of way, that is to say a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way;
'footpath' means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 17, after ("any") insert ("prohibition, restriction")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 47 agreed to.
§ First and Second Schedules agreed to.
§ Third Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places.]
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORD moved, in paragraph (2) (1), to omit the opening word "On" and to insert "Before." The noble Lord said: I have some doubt as to the construction of "On" in this line and suggest the insertion of the word "Before." There might be nothing in my point, but I should like to tell my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, what I had in mind. The paragraph as drafted suggests that on the application being made two things have to be done simultaneously—namely, publication in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality. As your Lordships know, the London Gazette is published on Tuesdays and Fridays, and the local newspaper may be published on quite a different day. Therefore it may be a little difficult, if I am right on the construction, to see how this provision can be complied with. I do not know: it may be that my noble friend is satisfied on the advice given to him that it causes no difficulty, but it seems to me that the insertion of the word "before" would avoid all doubt. I beg to move.
530
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 12, leave an ("On") and insert ("Before").—(Lord Conesford.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am interested to hear the reason which prompted the noble Lord to put down this Amendment. I am bound to say that I was in difficulty in understanding what was worrying him. I think he is being a trifle too logical in emphasising that all these things have to happen simultaneously. We should not at all mind putting in "before" but I am told that this is the normal wording used by the draftsman. I should add that the time factor does not matter until we come to paragraph 3, which says:
On such an application as aforesaid the Minister shall, after the period for objecting to the making of the order has expired, refer the application …and so on. So that really the time factor does not matter; it is of no considerable importance. I think we should prefer to keep the words as they are, but I shall be only too glad to look at this again in order to make quite certain that there is not something which ought to be done.
§ LORD CONESFORDIf there is a precedent for this and it has caused no difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
§ LORD CONESFORDI should like to commend this Amendment to my noble friend. When we were discussing Clause 15 of this Bill he rightly drew attention to the safeguards of the Third Schedule. I think there would be some safeguard if notice had to be served on the owners and occupiers of the land concerned. I think it is desirable in London because, as my noble friend must realise, there are a great number of people who do not normally read either the London Gazette or the local newspaper. Therefore there would be no real difficulty in making this addition, which I think would be a safeguard. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, after ("authority") insert ("shall serve a copy of the advertisement referred to in the foregoing sub-paragraph (1) on every owner or occupier of land adjacent to the parking places and").—(Lord Conesford.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI think it is fair to recall that we had this matter under consideration twelve months ago when these particular clauses were pretty 531 thoroughly "raked over" by your Lordships. Indeed, this Schedule bears clearly the imprint of what the House had in mind at that time. The particular point to which the noble Lord has drawn attention was clearly in our minds and we have put in these requirements, that it shall be first of all for the local authority not only to advertise in the London Gazette and the local paper but to
take such other steps as appear to the local authority reasonably practicable for the purpose of bringing specifically to the knowledge of persons likely to be specially affected, as the occupiers of land adjacent to the parking places, information as to the matters specified …If all this has been done, and there have been objections, the matter is referred to the Minister who may then direct the authority to take suchfurther steps for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, … as he may specify …We think that goes a pretty long way, and it is as far as the draftsman can go without imposing a statutory obligation that every person in the locality should be served.The real difficulty about the point of the noble Lord here is that it brings in the possibility of anybody who is an occupier or owner in the vicinity invalidating an order after it has been made because he can show that in point of fact he never was served with a notice. That means to say that he could hold up the action—indeed, it might intimidate any local authority and prevent them from taking any action whatever. I do not think that the noble Lord can put in a claim as high as that. He is making a claim which—I do not know whether he quite realises it—is a higher claim than his rights in the case of compulsory purchase. He is putting in a claim that a man has rights in the road in front of his house greater than the rights in his own house. There is a limitation in regard to challenging compulsory purchase orders after they have been made for six weeks. Indeed, I believe that even then a court will not invalidate the order unless the applicant can show that he is substantially prejudiced. I think the point that the noble Lord has raised is met without making a statutory binding obligation which might upset the working of the Bill. Therefore, I hope 532 that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
§ LORD CONESFORDI admit that I had not thought of the possible grave objection to which my noble friend has drawn attention. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment relates to the Schedule which we have just been discussing. It is to make sure that the particular protection to which I have referred applies equally well to areas outside London as it does to those inside London. It concerns a pure omission. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 42, line 36, at end insert—
("(3) Where on the expiration of the period specified in the advertisement under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph it appears to the Minister that, before the application is further dealt with, the local authority should take further steps for the purpose mentioned in the last foregoing sub-paragraph, he may direct the authority to take such further step9 for that purpose as he may specify, and if he does so the period within which a copy of the order and plan may be inspected, and objections may be made, shall be deemed to be extended by such time as the Minister may direct.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 45, leave out from the beginning to end of line 3 on page 43.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.
§ Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§ 8.20 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 3 to insert:
§ ("4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924 (which, as amended by section sixty-three of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, enables the Minister to make regulations with respect to road traffic in the London Traffic Area) after the word 'load' in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words the number of passengers the vehicle is adapted to carry'.
§ (2) In paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1924 (which specifies the 533 matters with respect to which regulations may be made under the said section ten) after the word 'traffic' there shall 'be inserted the words by vehicles, or'.
§ (3) For the purposes of the said: section ten and the said Third Schedule the expression 'road' means any highway and any other road to which the public has access.
§ 5. In subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which confers powers on local authorities with respect to the lopping of trees, hedges and shrubs overhanging streets or footpaths) for the words 'street or footpath' there shall be substituted the words 'highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access'.
§ 6.—(1) Regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, granting exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts—
- (a) may grant exemptions therefrom in such cases as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such conditions as may be specified in or under the regulations; and
- (b) may make different provision as respects different areas, as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicles or as respects the same class or description of vehicles in different circumstances.
§
(2) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which subsection provides for exempting vehicles from the requirements of that Act) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(b) vehicles standing or parked on any road with respect to which a speed limit on the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles is in force by virtue of any enactment or on any road verge or in any parking place or any stand for hackney carriages.'
§ (3) In relation to a road with respect to which an exemption under the said paragraph (b) has effect (whether absolutely or subject to conditions) the power conferred by subsection (1) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 of placing traffic signs indicating the existence of the exemption shall, if the local authority for the area in which the road is situated is not the highway authority for the road, be exercisable by the local authority with the consent of the highway authority, and the power conferred by subsection (5) of that section of giving to the highway authority directions for the removal of a traffic sign or other object or device or for the replacement of a traffic sign by, or its conversion into, a sign of another type or character shall include power to give such directions to the local authority in relation to a traffic sign, object or device placed by them on or near any such road.
§ In this sub-paragraph 'local authority' means, as respects England and Wales, the council of a county borough, county district, metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London, and as respects Scotland a county council or town council.
§ (4) Any provision contained in regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 534 to 1953, which grant exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts and are in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made under those Acts as amended by this paragraph.
§ 7.—(1) In section six of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (iii) (which provides that agricultural vehicles and implements need not carry a a separate lamp showing a red light to the rear) the word 'separate' shall be omitted.
§ (2) In section eight of the said Act of 1927, in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) (which provides, in the case of a vehicle drawing one or more other vehicles, that if the distance between any such vehicles exceeds five feet each vehicle shall be required to carry the same lamps as if is were not drawing or being drawn) for the words from 'any such' to 'being drawn ' there shall he substituted the words any two of the vehicles exceeds five feet, then as respects any light to be shown to the rear the foremost of the two vehicles, and as respect, any light to be shown to the front the rearmost of the two vehicles shall be required to carry the same lamps as if the one were net drawing the other'
§ 8. In subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1930 (which requires a licensing authority to refuse a driving licence if it appears from the application that the applicant suffers from any of the specified diseases and disabilities) after the word 'appears', where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words or if on inquiry into other information the licensing authority are satisfied'.")
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment consists of a lot of minor and consequential amendments to a Schedule which itself is a lot of miner and consequential amendments. I wish to assure you that there is nothing controversial in them, and if it is all the same to your Lordships, I move them without more ado. If your Lordships have any questions I shall not know the answers, but I do want to "show willing". I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 12, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis is a consequential Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert ("in subsection (61 for the words from 'five pounds' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
535§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment does no more than to say that a footpath is the same as a footway, and I think it will assist consolidation. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 49, line 22, at end insert—
("7. In section fourteen of the Act of 1930, in subsection (1) for the word 'footway' there shall be substituted the word 'footpath', and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(3) In this section the expressions "bridleway" and "footpath" have the same meanings as in the Road Traffic Act, 1956.'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD CONESFORD had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after paragraph 6:
7. At the end of section fourteen of the Act of 1930 there shall be added the following subsection—
'(3) The expression "lawful authority" in subsection (1) of this section shall mean, in relation to the use of vehicles on any footpath or bridleway otherwise than in the exercise of a private right of way, the consent in writing of the owner of the land over which the footpath or bridleway passes'.
§ The noble Lord said: I have had a word with my noble friend, and I think that this Amendment is so much bound up with those matters which we were considering on Monday night that it would be more convenient that I should not move it now but include it in the discussions I am going to have with my noble friend. In those circumstances I de not propose to move it.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) In section seventy-one of the Act of 1930, in subsection (4), after the words 'conditions as to fitness' there shall be inserted the words 'or such of those conditions as are not dispensed with by an order of the Minister under section sixty-eight of this Act for the time being in force'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment is really to clarify the appeal rights to the Traffic Commissioners.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 51, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the rights conferred by the said section eighty-one to appeal if aggrieved by
536
the imposition or attachment of a condition shall include rights to appeal against a refusal to impose or attach a condition or the imposition or attachment of a condition differing from that desired, and the rights conferred by that section to appeal if aggrieved by the variation of conditions shall include rights to appeal if aggrieved by the variation differing from that desired.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment validates certain procedure which has been going on since 1935, in which the Minister has actually been doing things which really should have been done by the licensing authority. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 52, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations under the said section sixteen may contain exemptions, applying in such cases and subject to such limitations as may be specified in the regulations, for vehicles used in the business of agriculture or vehicles used in the business of a travelling showman.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment validates regulations which were made under the section mentioned in the previous Amendment, so that it is not necessary to issue new regulations. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 52, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) Any such exemption or requirement as aforesaid contained in regulations under the said section sixteen in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made in the exercise of the powers conferred thereby.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 43, leave out ("following provisions of this paragraph") and insert ("provisions of the four next following subparagraphs").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 50, after ("revoked") insert ("or varied").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTThis Amendment is both drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 53, line 17, at end insert—
("(6) The provisions of the four Last foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply in relation to such directions as are authorised by subsection (3) of section thirty-six of this Act as they apply in relation to directions that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this paragraph applies to any length of trunk road.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI will not detain your Lordships a minute on this Amendment. It is really to ask the Government whether they will legalise under the 30 miles an hour limit the new four-wheeled trailer which, in quite a number of cases, has taken the place of the two-wheeled trailer. I know this can be done by regulation. I will content myself with moving the Amendment, if the noble Earl will be kind enough to say that he will bring in a regulation to cover it at the earliest convenience. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 53, line 33, at end insert—
29. In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 which imposes a maximum speed limit of 30 m.p.h. on a vehicle not being a heavy motor car adapted to carry not more than seven passengers, exclusive of the driver, drawing a two-wheeled trailer, after the words 'drawing a two-wheeled trailer' there shall be added 'or a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer' ('close-coupled' in relation to any two wheels of a vehicle meaning that those two wheels are both fitted on the same side of the vehicle, are not steerable and are so fitted that the distance between them measured horizontally and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle between the centres of the areas of contact of the wheels with the road surface does not exceed thirty-three inches)."—(Lord Lucas of Chilivorth.)
LORD WALERANI should like to support this Amendment. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, and I am sure the technical details are well known. I know it is supported by all the motoring organisations and I hope that it will come in at a later date by regulation.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThis Amendment appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday morning and we have not had an opportunity of looking at it. I am confident that it can be done by regulation and I can say that we shall probably do it; but I cannot commit myself at this 538 stage because we have not had an opportunity of examining what is involved.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWould it help the noble Earl if I say that this matter has been before his Department for over twelve months? I do not want to weary your Lordships with a long dissertation. Every detail of this Amendment is known to the Department. They promised almost two years ago that they would do it. The only reason I put down this Amendment is to bring it to the notice of the noble Earl. The excuse is always given that there is no Parliamentary time, and yet we have spent three days on some things—well at this time of night I will not tell you what I think about them. There is Parliamentary time to bring in that little lot so there should be time to bring in something like this. In the interests of road safety, caravan manufacturers have now made four-wheeled close-coupled trailers. I have here a photograph which your Lordships can see. Under the 1930 Act, as amended by the 1934 Act, they are now confined to 20 miles an hour because they have four wheels. You can trail your caravan with the old-fashioned two wheels at 30 miles an hour, but if you travel in the latest up-to-date, and far more safe, vehicle you are confined to 20 miles an hour, and it has been like this for four years. This is precisely a similar case to that of the station wagon and the 30 m.p.h. limit which took four years of incessant battering to put right. I ask the noble Earl whether, if the facts are as I have stated—which I know to be true—he will give the Committee an undertaking that at the earliest convenience he will put a regulation before Parliament to make this change.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI have done as much as I can. We have had something like 116 Amendments to deal with and I have not even had a chance to read this one. I hope the noble Lord will accept what I have said.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI do accept it, but I want to impress the noble Earl with the urgency. I have been here two clays and there are some of the Amendments that I have not had time to read. However, this is the last one and we do not want to quarrel on the last hurdle. I will accept the fact that he will do it as soon as he possibly can, With 539 that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 49, leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert ("coming into operation of this paragraph").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe remaining Amendments are repeals of enactments which I think I can move together. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 54, line 38, at end insert—
| ("17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 37. | The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927. | In section one, in subsection (2) the words 'and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulation' and the words 'or vehicles of any class or description', and in subsection (4) the words from' (a) as respects' to 'the year'; in section six, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (iii), the word 'separate' "). |
| —(The Earl of Selkirk). |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 13. column 3, after ("end") insert ("in section forty-six, subsections (1) and (9); in section forty-eight, the proviso to subsection (4).").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 22, column 3, leave out from ("sixty-one") to ("and") in line 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 32, column 3, after ("In") insert ("section two, subsection (5); in").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 43, column 3, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("and (6), in subsection (7), in paragraph (b), the words ' under subsection (5) of this section', and subsections").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
540
§
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 51, column 3, after ("months") insert ("in section six in subsection (1), the word 'either' and the words from the first 'or' to the end of the subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 55, line 55, at end insert—
| ("1 Edw. 8.& 1 Geo. 6. c. 5. | The Trunk Roads Act, 1936. | In the Second Schedule, in the entry relating to section forty-seven of the Act of 1930, the words 'and (8)'; and in Part I of the Third Schedule, in the entry relating to section one of the Act of 1934, the words 'Subsection (5) shall not apply'.") |
| —(The Earl of Selkirk). |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 55, line 57, at end add—
| ("1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 21. | The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953. | In section one, in subsection (5), the words from 'and subject' to 'the regulation' and the words' either generally or in any particular circumstances'; in section three, in subsection (3), the words' in any prescribed circumstances' |
| 1&2 Eliz. 2. c. 22. | The Road Transport Lighting (No. 2)Act, 1953. | Section one.) |
| —(The Earl of Selkirk). |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.