§ 1. Any offence against subsection (1) of section four of the Act of 1930 or section thirty-one of the Act of 1934 (driving, or employing a person to drive, without a licence) or under subsection (3) of section five of the Act of 1930 (failure to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence).
§ 2. Any offence under subsection (4) of section seven of the Act of 1930 (applying for or obtaining a licence, or driving, while disqualified).
§ 3. Any offence against section nine of the Act of 1930 (restriction of driving by young persons).
§ 4. Any offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle against any statutory restriction of speed on a road, including any offence under section thirteen of the Act of 1930.
§ 5. Manslaughter by the driver of a motor vehicle, any offence under section thirty-five of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (causing bodily harm) committed by the person having charge of a motor vehicle, or any offence under section eight of this Act, or section eleven or twelve of the Act of 1930 (reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving).
§ 6. Any offence under section nine of this Act, or any offence under section fifteen of the Act of 1930 (driving or attempting to drive when under the influence of drink or a drug) committed in respect of a motor vehicle.
§ 7. Any offence under section sixteen of the Act of 1930 (unlawful pillion riding) committed by the driver of a motor vehicle.
§ 8. Any offence under section twenty-eight of the Act of 1930 (taking away motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority).
§ 9. Any offence under subsection (1) of section two of this Act.
§ 10. An offence under any statutory provision, committed in respect of a motor vehicle, being an offence—
- (a) of failure to conform to the indication given by a traffic sign or to comply with a direction given by a police constable, or
- (b) of failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to Proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, or
- (c) of using a vehicle on a road, or causing or permitting a vehicle to be so used, so as, by the condition of the vehicle or its parts
1302 or accessories, the number of passengers carried by it, or the weight, distribution, packing or adjustment of its load, to cause, or to be likely to cause, danger, and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) of contravening any requirement as to brakes, steering gear or tyres or any other requirement prescribed under subsection (1) of section one of this Act,
§ 11. Any offence under section thirty-five of the Act of 1930 (compulsory third party insurance).
§ 12. Any offence in respect of a motor vehicle under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953."
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this new Schedule although I have already referred to it earlier. For reasons that I explained then, it has been thought desirable to clarify the offences for which disqualification might apply. All we have done here is to put a list of the offences to which that penal sanction already applies. There is no new offence in this Schedule at all. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to only two paragraphs, because they have been inserted in the Schedule since it first appeared. The first is paragraph 8, which was put in after some words I had with my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who drew my attention to the fact that taking a car without the owner's consent was an offence for which previously disqualification had been used. The second is paragraph (9) (c), which is a slight extension of what was in this Schedule before—though not of the existing penal sanction—of driving a car in a dangerous condition. The various circumstances are outlined. I think those are the only two paragraphs to which I need draw attention. I am sure that it will be a great convenience to magistrates to see in this clear-cut way to what offences disqualification can apply. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After the Third Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on having this so clearly set out, but would 1303 he go a stage further? I should like the general public to be informed, if possible, through the public relations department of the Ministry of Transport of the severity of the penalties that can now be imposed, according to this Schedule. A motorist's driving dicence can be suspended for nearly every offence under the traffic law. He can now have his licence suspended for proceeding the wrong way up a one-way street; and he can have it suspended if he is convicted of failure to comply with a direction to drive his vehicle on a certain part of the highway. I do not quarrel with any of this, but I think that if the British public were better acquainted with the road traffic law—and whoever is going to explain to them its ramifications will have not only a Herculean task but, I should think, a life-long one—we might see a stricter observance of it. That would relieve the magistrates and the police of a lot of trouble, and it would save motorists a lot of money. I have read through this Schedule, and I would urge your Lordships to read it too. You will be surprised, as I was, when you see the number of offences there are for which you can be deprived of the use of your motor car. If the noble Earl could do that, I am sure he would be adding still more to the effectiveness of the legislation we are attempting to put into force.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite is a good one; and if I may follow it up, would it not be possible to have a simply worded leaflet sent out with the driving licence when it came back after renewal? That would help motorists to know what the new law is.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHOr an addendum to the Highway Code.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, as a humble driver of a motor vehicle, I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the Minister for this Amendment, which I feel is a most valuable one, and if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, could be put into effect, it would be even better.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the welcome which this new Schedule has received. However, I should like to reinforce what I said before. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, suggested something about new offences, 1304 but I would repeat that there is nothing new in this Schedule; it merely sets out the law as it exists at present. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the point the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has made, and the warm commendation which that suggestion has received from different parts of the House.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment anticipates the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The noble Viscount has a valid point here. It is possible that sometimes the powers of the local authorities to cut away the trees, hedges or shrubs on the edge of a road which are obscuring the view, are obviously intended for things like brambles, grass and weeds. What we have done is to change the words and to say that, besides references to trees, hedges and shrubs, we should include references to vegetation of any description. I am confident that it fully covers the point the noble Viscount has in his Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 30, after ("footpaths)") insert ("references to trees, hedges, and shrubs shall include references to vegetation of any description, and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I am very glad indeed to see this Amendment on the Marshalled List, as it not only covers my point but, as the noble Earl says, extends it to cover such things as bracken and heather where they grow to a sufficient height to obscure the view. The Public Health Act, 1925, specifically says, in Section 23, that one of the reasons these hedges, shrubs and trees should be lopped is for the purposes of road safety. If we are going to add the other vegetation mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Earl, I think it is a suitable place to do so, and I welcome it heartily.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 6 to insert:
7.—(1) The Minister may by regulations provide that, subject to any exemptions prescribed by the regulations,—
and any such regulations may prescribe the conditions with which lamps or reflectors carried on a vehicle in pursuance of the regulations must comply and the position and manner in which they are to be attached, and may make different provision in respect of vehicles of different classes or descriptions, or in respect of vehicles of the same class or description in different circumstances.
§ (2) Section ten of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which imposes penalties for contraventions of that Act or of regulations thereunder) and section fourteen of that Act (which specifies the vehicles to which that Act applies and applies the Act to the Crown) shall apply in relation to this paragraph and regulations thereunder as they apply in relation to that Act and regulations thereunder.
§ (3) Any lamps or reflectors required to be carried by virtue of this paragraph shall be carried in addition to, and not instead of, those required to be carried by or by virtue of the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, and accordingly any such lamps or reflectors shall, for the purposes of these Acts and, in particular, section two of the said Act of 1927 and for the purposes of section eight of the Act of 1934, be treated as not showing a light 10 the front or to the rear.
§ (4) Any reference in section nineteen of the Act of 1934 to the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953 shall include a reference to this paragraph.
§ (5) It is hereby declared that any reference in section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953, to a reflector is a reference to a reflector facing to the rear.
§ (6) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment looks rather formidable, but I am happy to tell your Lordships that I need not go into it in any detail It is concerned with our old friend, the abnormal indivisible load. On Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, tried to persuade us to accept an Amendment which would prohibit the movement of these "juggernauts," as he rightly called them, during roughly the hours of daylight, and to confine their movement to the hours of darkness. Unfortunately, I had to reject 1306 the Amendment because the police were most unhappy at this idea on the grounds of safety. They pointed out that these vehicles were difficult enough to drive, even in broad daylight, and that the idea of their being driven safely on the roads at night presented a problem which filled them with considerable alarm.
§ The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, went on to suggest some Amendment to the lighting regulations which he thought would increase the road safety of these big vehicles at night. I gave him an undertaking that I would try to do something to meet what I thought was a valuable point. This Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, is our attempt to honour our obligations to the noble Lord in this respect. I think we go even further than he wanted. We give him all that he asks and a little more, for this reason. We think that, whilst we are making these regulations (which will be difficult to work out in theory, and much easier to put into practice when we see how they work) we may as well cover every eventuality which might arise with these "juggernauts." I do not know whether the noble Lord has been through the new paragraph in great detail, but I think he will agree that it goes even further than the promise I originally gave. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph.— (Lord Mancroft.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said with regard to my lighting proposals. He is quite right in saying that his Amendment goes even further, which I think will be an advantage. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord said that I should have "abnormal loads" written across my heart, like Queen Mary of old had the word "Calais" written across her heart. I do not want something written across my heart; I want something put into the Act of Parliament. If I keep on long enough, I expect that one day I shall get some regulation about these abnormal loads.
What I wish to impress upon the noble Lord—and this is all I intend to say on this particular subject this afternoon—is that, while nothing is done about it, these abnormal loads are getting more and more abnormal. Unless something 1307 is done about it, we shall be forced into a very difficult position. I believe that these loads, which cannot, by any stretch of reason, be carried by any other means of transport—and there are some that cannot go by sea or by road—will have to be broken down in the way that was done years ago. Then, there used to be sections. Now, through the softness of the Ministry of Transport, they are prefabricated and taken along the roads, to the discomfort of everybody. The others will have to travel at night, because in another year or two the traffic on these roads will have overtaken even the capacity of the roads the country is building at present. I am happy and grateful that I am like Pilgrim—"one step enough for me."
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I am not always in agreement on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I am happy to see this Amendment. May I ask my noble friend whether he will make certain that the Ministry, when making regulations with regard to lighting, will see that they make them in plenty of time for the abnormal load to move on the date it is intended to move? Some of the police arrangements about moving by day or night sometimes have to be altered rather late. It may well be that the police think that a load should go through by day and, for quite proper reasons of their own, suddenly decide that part of the journey must be made by night. If the Ministry would take care that, should that happen, the lighting regulations for the abnormal load are there, so that the matter will not have to be referred back and delay the moving of the load, I should be grateful.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, instead of moving Amendments to the Road Traffic Act, I wish the noble Lord would do something to give us roads which would be adequate to take an abnormal indivisible load, without all the necessity for these difficult regulations. I agree with what has been said by previous speakers, that these large indivisible loads are an increasing menace, obstruction and danger to the users of the highway—not only drivers of motor vehicles, but to everybody who uses the highway. They create a difficulty for the police. They make extra demands on the police, who are already short-handed. They have to be escorted along their devious routes, and 1308 they are a menace to those responsible for the upkeep of bridges and the like. We all know these things, and we cannot stress them too often.
The real trouble is that the road system of this country was never constructed with the idea of carrying these abnormal indivisible loads, and it cannot be adapted to it. I do beg the Government, instead of coming forward with Amendments to permit of the movement of these gigantic things, to "get down to it" and give us the roads upon which it would be safe to move them without causing difficulty for other road users. There would be much more sense in that. The movement of these colossal loads, whether by day or night, brings traffic on the Al road to an absolute standstill. It is impossible to get one of these enormous things—even one that is not one of the biggest—through Stamford or Newark, to give the noble Lord an example. What I have said is reinforced there a thousand times over. It really is not right to send these things along important arteries of traffic. The A30 is just as bad, and also the A40, for that matter—the A40 into Oxford, and the A30 into Southampton. Ship's propellers are often taken on enormous trailers to Southampton. One often wonders why loads of that sort could not go by sea. This matter does not seem to be tackled by authority as it should be, and as it must be, if we are not to have the roads made inadequate, for the loads that move along them. I beg the noble Lord not to rest content with this Amendment, but to try to impress upon the Minister of Transport the absolute crying necessity for better roads for through-traffic in this country, be it carrying abnormal indivisible loads or any other loads.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, perhaps, by leave of the House, I may reply to the two or three questions put to me. I wholly agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, have said concerning the nuisance of these abnormal indivisible loads on the roads. I have been agreeing with them for about two years, but I do not know what the answer is; nor does the Minister of Transport, who has just completed the most exhaustive investigation on this point to see what we can do to mitigate the nuisance that this problem causes on the roads. If the load is small 1309 enough to go by rail, then it goes by rail, but many of these loads are far too big to go under tunnels and bridges.
LORD NIANCROFTSome can also go by sea, but sometimes it is not possible to send them by sea. We ought to bear in mind that people do not send fifty-ton propellers by road for the fun of it. On many occasions, however, these things have to go by road. We are inquiring into this most carefully to see what can be done and we are fully aware of the most appalling nuisance that is caused. The other evening, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, "chipped" me for talking about the adverse level of unemployment when I meant the favourable level of employment. When he talks of loads becoming "more and more abnormal", what he really means is that they are becoming normal.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.12 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 7 to insert:
§ " 8.—(1) In subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the classification of motor vehicles) the words from 'Motor vehicles' to 'classes' shall cease to have effect, and in each paragraph of that subsection the words from 'that is to say' to the end of the paragraph in that subsection shall be construed as a definition for the purposes of that Act of the expression immediately preceding those words; and in paragraphs (d) to (f) of the said subsection (1) for the words `classified under this section as' there shall be substituted the words 'falling within the definition contained in this subsection of'.
§ (2) Subsection (2) of the said section two (which empowers regulations to be made subdividing classes of vehicles, and making different provisions with respect to each subdivision, and varying maximum or minimum weights fixed as respects any class) shall cease to have effect, but regulations under section thirty of the Act of 1930 may vary any of the maximum or minimum weights specified in the definitions contained in subsection (1) of the said section two, either generally or in the case of vehicles of any class or description specified in the regulations and either for the purposes of the Act and of all regulations thereunder or for such of those purposes as may be so specified.
§ (3) The Motor Vehicles (Definition of Motor Cars) Regulaticns, 1941 shall cease to have effect, but subject to the power conferred by the last foregoing sub-paragraph the definition of motor cars' in subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1930 shall include vehicles constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description— 1310
- (a) which carry a container or containers for holding for the purpose of their propulsion any fuel that is wholly gaseous at sixty degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure of thirty inches of mercury, or plant and materials for producing such fuel, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three and a half tons,
- (b) which do not carry any such container, or plant and materials, as aforesaid, and of which the maximum weight unladen does not exceed three tons;
§ (4) In subsection (3) of section four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for specifying in driving licences restrictions with respect to the driving of any class of vehicle) after the word class' there shall be inserted the words `or description'.
§ (5) Nothing in subsection (4) of section ten of the Act of 1930 (which empowers the Minister by regulation to vary the provisions of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be construed as limiting the powers conferred by sub-paragraph. (2) of this paragraph."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment effects no change of any substance, but will merely facilitate the work of consolidation and avoid doubts which might otherwise arise as to the powers of the Minister, when making regulations about motor vehicles, to make different regulations for different classes or descriptions of such vehicles. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Mancrof)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out from the beginning to ("which") in line 1 on page 58 and insert—("9. In subsection (2) of section six of the Act of 1930").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment is both drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 47, leave out from ("and") to end of line 48 and insert ("for the words from the offence of' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words the provisions of this Part of this Act as to disqualification for holding or obtaining licences shall not apply to his conviction of that offence ' ").—(Lord Mancrof 1.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1311§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after paragraph 24 to insert:
§ "25. Subsection (2) of section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1930 (which provides for consultation with representative organisations before the making of regulations under that Act) shall apply to the making of regulations under this Act or the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953; and subsection (4) of that section, and subsection (3) of section twenty-six of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which provide that production of a copy of regulations purporting to be printed by the Government printers shall be evidence that the requirements of the Act as to the making and laying of regulations have been compiled with) shall cease to have effect."
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a consolidation Amendment. There are two points about this which I should like to make, quite shortly. One is to ensure that when the Minister is making regulations he will carry out the consultative procedure with representative organisations. This is really to ensure that all regulations are on the same line which will enable consolidation to proceed rather more easily. In any case, it is a desirable practice. The other point is that there was in certain enactments, particularly the 1933 Act, a rule which made the Government Printer's copy of the regulations evidence that the full Parliamentary procedure had been complied with. That procedure is no longer used to-day. Accordingly, the provision in (I think it is) the 1933 Act is repealed. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 51, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am tempted to ask the noble Earl, when is consolidation not consolidation? I do so only because it gives me an excuse to ask him this further question: will he consult with his colleagues who are responsible for this Bill and ask when we can expect a consolidated Road Traffic Act? Because, of all the Acts which are upon the Statute Book, I should think the most chaotic are the Road Traffic Acts of this country. We have a Road Traffic Act, 1930; we have a Road Traffic Act, 1933; we have a Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1934; and we shall now have a Road Traffic Act, 1956. If any of your Lordships wants to understand what is the law, he has to go through all these Acts to find out. The time has arrived when the noble Lord must appreciate the great necessity for 1312 consolidation. He really has, because the Amendment to one of the Schedules, for which we have so well and truly praised him, only goes to show the necessity for some clarification. I think the time for consolidation has arrived, for the benefit of the law-makers—I will not say the law-breakers—and those who have to administer and study the law on this subject. We know that the consolidation of the Road Traffic Acts of this country is long overdue.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, as a commentary on what has just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am not sure that everybody in this House realises that, whenever he gets into the driving-seat of his motor car and starts to drive off, there are over 3,000 offences which he can commit—3,001 now, because there is a new one under this Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKPerhaps we could hear one day how many of these 3,000 offences the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has not committed.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I appreciate the point he is making. The work of consolidation is already far advanced.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI thank the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI can go even further than that and say this, tentatively—and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate it—that if we are lucky, we may have it by next Easter.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHGood!
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.18 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 29 to insert:
§ "30. 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 1313 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 33 inches;)."
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can deal with this matter very shortly. I have put this Amendment down again because on Committee stage, very late at night, I asked the noble Earl whether he would give me an assurance that the Regulation—and this can be done by regulation because it is an amendment of the Construction and Use Regulations 1955—would be introduced soon as a great deal of inconvenience was being caused not only to the industry but to users. The purpose of this Amendment is as follows. One can tow a two-wheeled caravan behind one's motor car and travel at 30 m.p.h.; but if one buys the most up-to-date caravan of no larger size but with two close-coupled wheels on each side, because it has four wheels instead of two one can travel at only 20 m.p.h. This Amendment seeks to allow the close-coupled, twin-wheeled caravan, towed behind a motor car, to travel at 30 m p.h. like its antiquated predecessor. It can be done by regulation. I have put the Amendment down again, and perhaps the noble Earl, now that he has had time to look at it and consult his advisers, can give me some reassuring news. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved.
Page 62, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, on the Committee stage I saw the Amendment only in the morning of the day it was moved and did not have time to look at it very carefully. I think I can give the noble Lord all he is asking for. First of all, this is a matter which is better done by regulation, because that is the speedier way; secondly, I will undertake to see that it is done before the end of the year. I hope that it will actually be done weeks, and perhaps even months, earlier than that. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with that statement.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Earl. This is the last Amendment that I have on the Marshalled List. My thanks are also due to him for the other roost valuable concessions he has given.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1314§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 22, leave out ("(3) of section forty-three") and insert ("(4) of section four"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is an Amendment for Scottish application. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 63, line 26, at end insert—
("(8) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFTThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 42, at end insert:
§ "29. For subsection (1) of section three of the Road Traffic (Drivirg Licences) Act, 1936 (which provides that a driving licence granted on a test of competence to drive prescribed for a specified class or description of vehicles shall specify that class or description and that the person to whom it is granted shall be deemed not to be the holder of a driving licence for vehicles of any other class or description) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
§ `(1) A licence (other than a provisional licence) granted under Part I of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 shall specify whether the licence authorises the holder to drive motor vehicles of all classes or descriptions or of certain classes or descriptions only, and in the latter case—
- (a) the licence shall specify the classes or descriptions of vehicles which it authorises the holder to drive, and
- (b) the holder shall be deemed not to be the holder of a licence granted under that Part of that Act to drive motor vehicles of any other class or description.'"—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I think I can say that all the remaining Amendments, Nos. 86 to 90, are drafting Amendments. The last repeals the words of Section 2 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, in regard to disqualification on second conviction. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 14, column 3, after ("In") insert ("section two, in subsection (1) the words from the beginning to `classes' and subsections (2) and (3); in").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 50, column 3, after ("sixty-one") insert ("in section one hundred and eleven, subsection (4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 57, column 3, leave out ("and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 59, column 3, at end insert ("and in section twenty-six, subsection (3)"). —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 14, column 3, leave out from ("(10)") to ("in") in line 16.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.