§ 4.59 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
§ Clause 4:
§ Amendments as to speed limit in
built-up areas
§ (3) As respects any length of road in a built-up area to which this subsection apples 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.
§ (4) 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 be deemed not to he a road in a built-up area, but the giving, revocation or variation thereof shall be subject to the like provisions as the giving, revocation or variation by that authority of such a direction as is last mentioned.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§
EARL OF SELKIRK Moved to add to subsection (4):
Provided that if at any time after the expiration of four years from the coming into operation of the last foregoing subsection each House of Parliament resolves that it is expedient that that subsection should have no further operation. Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the subsection shall cease to have effect.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the course of the Report stage on the Bill we had some discussion on Clause 4, and, in particular, on the power of extending the 40 m.p.h. speed limit, in place of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit, to roads outside London which were not trunk roads; that is to say, we are dealing here only with 55 classified roads outside London. I then explained that this proposal really arose from recommendations made by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, who had examined the possibility of a differential speed limit. Let me say straight away that it is quite clear that opinion is sharply divided, or at least varied, on this subject, and for the information of the House I should like to call attention to the varied opinions expressed by different organisations. The London County Council are in favour of a differential speed limit; the Association of County Councils are in favour; the Association of Municipal Corporations are against; the Institution of Municipal Engineers are in favour; the Road Research Laboratory are in favour; the British Transport Commission are in favour; the Transport and General Workers Union are against; the motoring organisations, as a whole, are against; the British Road Federation are against; the Cyclists Touring Club are against; the pedestrians are against; the Federation of British Industries are in favour; and the London Chamber of Commerce are against. That is a mixed bag.
§ I believe that we have come to the right decision in deciding to try it as an experiment. I take it that the House is broadly agreed that we should try the experiment and see how it works. It is entirely with that in view that I have put down the Amendment. It seems to me that the Amendment indicates beyond peradventure that this extension in certain areas on classified roads outside London is of an experimental nature; that is to say, that after four years it will be open to either House of Parliament to pass a Resolution which will say that subsections (3) and (4) of this Clause shall no longer be applicable. I have said "four years," because I think it will take that time before we can give the experiment a sufficient run to be able to form any reliable conclusions. The experiment has to be set up, and it has to be run for a period, and then it will have to be statistically examined. I think that, short of a period of something like two years, it will not be possible for the Road Research Laboratory to evaluate the result in terms of traffic flow and safety. It will only be after that that the Depart- 56 mental Road Safety Committee will have the information on which to compile their report. Thereafter the report will be laid before Parliament, and will be considered.
§ This is a difficult question, and I do not believe there is any theoretical solution to it. We must be pragmatical; we must try the experiment and see whether it works or not. We must take the decision with the information in front of us and not be in any way rash in doing it. I move this Amendment because it seems to me that it meets the opinion which the House expressed before. I would repeat that I believe we should make the experiment and see whether it works; and, if it does not, we can pass a Resolution, when it will cease to have effect. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, the noble Earl has rightly outlined our difficulties here. I should like to deal with the matter perhaps a little more fully, because upon further study of this problem I am rather swayed against this proposal. I would illustrate what the proposal is. The proposal is by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee that there should be a differential speed limit, and that it should take place as an experiment in the London traffic area. The differential speed limit is this: that the speed limit should be varied from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. on various stretches of road. If your Lordships have studied the map that is in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, you will have seen there clearly set out that one can travel along a 30 m.p.h. stretch. suddenly get into a 40 m.p.h. stretch, and then come back again into a 30 m.p.h. stretch. There is a substantial body of opinion—and I must confess that I hold the opinion, too—which feels that that is a highly dangerous procedure.
During the course of this Bill I have had something to say, I am afraid at some length, on the question of penalties for breaches of the traffic laws. But all the way through the protracted discussion I had nothing to say about exceeding the speed limit, because my sympathies are very much with the poor, unfortunate road vehicle user who exceeds the speed limit. He has to watch the traffic; he 57 is inundated with signs of this, that and the other character; and he has a job to keep to the normal speed limit at the present tine because he cannot afford one split second to look at his speedometer. This is going to make confusion worse confounded. On the whole, I am against the proposal, although I did say—and I have not changed my mind about this—that we are in such straits over this matter that we should try the experiment. I agree with the noble Earl that the London area is the proper place to try the experiment. If your Lordships look again at this map, you will see that the London traffic area stretches from Bishops Stortford in the north to south of Dorking in the south; to Gravesend in the east and nearly to Berkhamstead and Eton in the west. There are all kinds of traffic and traffic conditicns in that area.
I have an Amendment down similar to that of the noble Earl, but my Amendment differs from his in this regard. What Clause 4 (3) of the Bill does is to give every authority in this country outside London which now has the authority to apply for a 30 m.p.h. limit, the right to apply for a 40 m.p.h. limit. The Amendment of the noble Earl does not alter that, but my Amendment does. My Amendment says that before we go outside the London experimental area we should satisfy ourselves, by reference to the Ministerial Safety First Committee, whether the scheme is a good one or a thoroughly bad one, or that it wants revision. DO not apply this huge experiment to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales. If you do, what will you get? Perhaps half the local authorities who now have power to apply to the Minister for a 30 m.p.h. limit, and who under this Amendment will be able to apply for a 40 m.p.h. limit, will apply for the 40 m.p.h. limit, arid half may not apply. So you will get a differential speed limit, not only in some towns, but in some areas, and not in others. If there is one virtue of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit it is that it is universal and we all know where we are.
My Amendment recommends that we should try the experiment—I do not mind for how long; that is in the wisdom of the Minister or his advisers—but that we should confine it to London. We should then refer the whole matter to the Safety First Committee—of which I have some 58 knowledge; I was chairman of it when I was Parliamentary Secretary—and then let the Minister come to Parliament and ask, if necessary with reservations, to apply it in any area of the country that the Minister so desires.
I prefer my Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment because, frankly, I believe that even if this is accepted in some kind of principle, there will be a lot of reservations. One big reservation which I feel certain will be made is that a differential speed limit is all very well when you go from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. and then to unlimited speeds, but that there are innumerable places where you will go from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h., then drop back to 30 m.p.h., then to 40 m.p.h. again, and, finally, back again to 30 m.p.h. On some of these roads. it is going to be confusion worse confounded. I am with the noble Earl; I want an experiment; but. I want it confined to London. It is no good referring the matter back to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, because they are the people who recommended it. The Safety First Committee are the best people. Then the Minister can come to Parliament and say, under the Statutory Instrument, "Will you now please put into operation these sections of this Act."
May I say one final word? Nothing in this Bill altering the speed limit can ever be permanent unless the Minister so desires. Nothing in this Bill alters the Minister's power, under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to vary speed limits as he so desires. Therefore, at any time in future—in ten years' time—if the traffic conditions get sufficiently bad, the Minister will be able to bring the speed of traffic down from 40 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. The situation is not static. The only thing that I want to be static is that the experiment should be confined to London, and that is why I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment and accept mine. We are in some difficulty. We are on Third Reading and not Committee stage. On balance, I think that my Amendment meets the view of the House as expressed on the Report stage, when many of your Lordships had grave doubts about this clause but wanted the experiment. I feel that my Amendment meets their wishes better 59 than the Amendment of the noble Earl, and I therefore hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WALERANMy Lords, I should like to speak briefly in favour of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, not yet moved, but which will no doubt be moved if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, sees fit to withdraw this Amendment. The noble Earl quite rightly told your Lordships the difficulties found by the ad hoc committee of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and he gave your Lordships the differences of opinion that came out in evidence. I totalled up as best I could the differences in the evidence on pages 21 to 25 of the Report, and find that six of the people who gave evidence said they wanted a differential speed limit, and six said they did not. The interesting thing is this. Out of the six who were in favour of a differential speed limit, three wanted 45 m.p.h. and two wanted 40 m.p.h. One of those two said only, "say, 40 m.p.h."—he did not come down heavily one way or the other. I know that the motoring organisations, who are against the differential speed limit, would prefer, if they must have one. 45 m.p.h. One of the reasons is this. If you are passing a lorry on one of these roads with a limit of 40 m.p.h. as proposed in this Bill, the difference in speeds is only 10 m.p.h. If it is a long lorry, with a trailer, it will take you a long time to get by, and there is a long period of danger, which is one of the things we wish to avoid. Surely, if we are going to have a difference, it must be more than this small margin. I wish to go on record that I prefer the second Amendment to the first.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but may I say that I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I think this experiment is highly dangerous, particularly to drivers on passing. I regret that one is forced to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the stage has now arrived where one has to agree to the experiment. I also wish to go on record as saying that I greatly dislike this 40 m.p.h. limit, because I believe that it will lead to accidents. When I first read these two Amendments. I was 60 inclined to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the ground that his Amendment appeared, on the face of it, to be a definite experimental view of the matter. Since listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I see that his Amendment has exactly the same effect: it makes the scheme entirely experimental. And of the two, I prefer his Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I am bound to say that this is not a matter I want to fight about. There are a number of points about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which I am bound to say I do not like. I do not like his drafting. It constitutes a precedent which I think may be unfortunate. What I dislike is that the Amendment is purely negative. We all agree about the experiment, and the noble Lord said, "Do not do it." I am bound to say that I think it is a pity to take that line I am perfectly prepared to give an undertaking that it will be done only in a limited number of places. I do not think the anxiety the noble Lord has about local authorities suddenly wishing to change all their 30 m.p.h. limits to 40 m.p.h. has any foundation whatsoever. None the less, if the House feels that they prefer the noble Lord's Amendment I will not stand in their way, and I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and, in due course, accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
(" (5) The provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall not take effect until an order by statutory instrument appointing a day for such subsections to come into operation has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament:
Provided that no such order shall be made before the Minister has reported to each House of Parliament the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee on the results of the experimental introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit in the London Traffic Area.")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. This is a difficult position in which we find ourselves, and not least the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He has grave doubts about the wisdom of this proposal. But when we are confronted with the seriousness of this road traffic congestion problem, and its contribution to accidents, we are almost 61 forced to the conclusion: Let us try anything as an experiment to see whether it will do something. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Derwent and Lord Waleran. Some of these stretches of road where it is possible to have only a 40 m.p.h. limit will not be long enough to permit motorists to pass some of these abnormal loads we see on the roads. If your Lordships study this map, you will see that some of them will be a death trap. However, I will not say any more. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will accept my Amendment. I do not agree with what he said about the drafting of my Amendment. I think it is very good drafting., and one clay I will tell him who drafted it, although I will not do that to-day. I beg leave to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I think it is proper for me to say this. These new clauses have not been before the other place. Of course, we have differences of opinion here, and there may well be differences of opinion there. Therefore, I cannot commit the Minister to, shall I say, fighting to the last ditch for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I must leave the Minister quite free, when our Amendments ale considered, to make other suggestions. Subject to that, I am perfectly willing that this Amendment should be accepted.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 19 [Provision of parking places where charges made]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19. line 37, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (7) or (8) of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 22 [Offences relating to parking places]:
§ 5.21 p.m.
§
The EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
(2) In relation to an offence under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection of leaving a vehicle for longer after the excess
62
charge has been incurred than the time prescribed under subsection (5) of the last foregoing section, or failing duly to pay any charge payable under section nineteen of this Act, the reference in the said paragraph (a) to the driver of a vehicle shall be construed as references to the person driving the vehicle at the time it was left in the parking place.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting but, because I shall be referring to it later, perhaps I may explain exactly what we are doing here. We are now dealing with parking, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that, in the event of an offence being committed—that is to say, the initial charge or the excess charge which may be due not having been paid—the person who is liable is the person who drove the car into the parking place and left it. Neither the owner nor the person who may subsequently come along and pick up the car is liable. This Amendment does no more than make that point abundantly clear. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, would the noble Earl mind explaining to the House what he means by saying that the person w ho drives the car on to a parking place will be responsible for the payment of any excess charge? He will not know that an excess charge is payable until the car has been on the parking place. A different person comes to collect it. What happens? How does one trace the first person? I do not know how that is to be done. He may have gone. If the second person says, "I want to collect the car," does the car park attendant, who we now know will be armed with the authority of the police, say, "You cannot do that"? If the man says, "But it is my car; you cannot hold my property," what happens? It is all very well to say that the person who drives the car on to the car park is liable for the costs of the excess charge after it has been incurred. What will happen? Could the noble Earl tell us?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, it is really quite a simple point. We had one decision to make when we decided to try this experiment, and it was this: Who was to be responsible for any offence committed on a designated 63 parking area? There are two possible lines. We could either make the owner responsible for any offences which, so to speak, his car commits, or we could make the driver responsible. We have come down in favour of the driver. The driver, whoever he may be, who puts the car into the parking place is responsible for any offences which the presence of that car may subsequently, shall I say, commit. He personally will be liable.
The complement to that is that the owner should be responsible, and he is made liable, as the noble Lord will remember, by a later paragraph to inform the local authority who the driver was. That is a point we shall be coming to later when we examine Clause 32. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 32 for one moment, he will see that the powers, very limited powers, are given not to the police. I would repeat, but to the local authority. The local authority have the power only of asking the owner who the driver of the car was. They have no power to stop the car from being driven away: no power to ask for a licence. They have no powers to do any of those things except to ask the owner, if he was not the driver. who was the driver. The noble Lord will recognise at once that, if you do not make the owner himself responsible. there is only one other way of doing it, and that is to give the local authority power to force the owner to say who was driving the car. That is the procedure and I do not think it should cause any dispute.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. The great difficulty—I found that we could not have the Bill recommitted to argue some of these points—is this. I would recommend the noble Earl to consider seriously making the owner responsible, right the way through the Bill. I could mention many cases where the man who went to collect the car would not know who the first driver was. There is only one certain way of finding out who owns that car, and that is for the car park attendant to take the number of the motor car and let the local authority then get in touch with the owner. I do not think you can hold the man who comes to the car park to drive the car away responsible for payment. The owner is responsible, and one can only assume that 64 anyone else who drives the car is the servant of the owner. May I make that suggestion to the noble Earl for consideration when the Bill gets to another place?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is making a very good point, because in no circumstances should anyone drive a car except with the permission of the owner. Very well. It is not the person who comes on to the parking place and takes the car away who is asked; it is the owner who is asked who was driving the car. If the noble Lord considers that a little longer, he will realise that that is, in fact, the most logical and sensible way of doing it. If there is any extra payment to be made, the person who is by law responsible is the person who drives the car on to the parking place—presumably, with the owner's permission. We have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I think that is the right decision. I believe that, if the noble Lord will give the matter a little more thought. he will realise that that is probably correct.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 23 [Parking places: financial provisions]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 27, at beginning insert ("In this section the expression").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is moved to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in regard to the designation of parking areas. I should like the noble Lord, to be quite clear, to note the effect of the Amendment. It may be making the procedure rather too laborious, but we are anxious that there should be as wide a measure of agreement as possible on the institution of parking meters. If the noble Lord will look, he will see that there are really now two stages in the process of setting up parking meters. The first will be in the form of an Affirmative Resolution, which I should explain will be of an entirely simple character: it will merely say there will, or may be, parking meters in, say, 65 Birmingham. That will be the first stage. Thereafter, there will be a second stage where a proposal, giving the full details of how the parking meters are to be laid out in Birmingham, will be subject to a Negative Resolution. That is the effect of this Amendment. As I say, it is pretty laborious. but the House felt that it wanted it, and we have put it in. I beg to move.
§ Amendment. moved—
§
Page 25, line 42, after ("instrument") insert—
(" (4) An order under subsection (7) or (8) of section nineteen of this Act shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument embodying any order under the provisions of this Act relating to parking places other than subsections (7) and (8) of section nineteen of this Act shall be").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for this Amendment. I agree with him that it may be a little laborious, but I think that it will satisfy everybody, in that there will be a right to raise any point at any stage in regard to the designation of parking places. The noble Earl has met the wishes of the House and I am grateful to him for so doing.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl for his Amendment, which I think meets a great many of the points which I raised on the Committee stage.
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 26 [Penalties and disqualifications]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 32, at end insert ("committed in respect of motor vehicles").—(The Earl of Selkirk)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 32 [Extension of s.. 113 (3) of Act of 1930]:
§ 5.31 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (1), after the penultimate "or" to insert "in writing". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I really dealt with this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 4, but your Lordships may 66 recollect that I was asked exactly what the power of the local authority would be to ask questions of the owner. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was most indignant that any parking attendant should ever ask for his name and address. I do not think it is offensive to ask anybody his name and address. None the less, I have made it abundantly clear here that the request to the owner from the local authority will be made only in writing. In the ordinary course of events, it will mean that if someone has perhaps infringed a parking regulation or, it may be, owes an excess charge, he will receive a letter asking who was the driver. In the normal case I think the owner will reply and say who was driving the car, if he was not himself doing so. If he does not do that, it is true that he will probably be visited by somebody with a letter, asking for this information, and he will be obliged to give it. I am certain that that is the only way in which it can be done.
§ I should like to confirm that what I said about the limitations imposed by the clause as drawn was correct. None the less, to make it quite clear, I have added the words which your Lordships see in this Amendment—namely, "in writing". May I again make it clear that this power does not give the right to the representatives of the local authority to ask for driving licences, insurances, or any other information? They may not hold up cars, they may not stop people.. nor may they assume any of the normal police powers at all. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 24, after the second ("or") insert (", in writing,").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl could have gone any further to meet the wishes of the House in this regard, and again I am grateful to him.
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 33 [Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930]:
§ 33.—(1) The powers conferred by subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (which authorises the making of orders regulating traffic on roads) shall be exercisable as 67 respects any road where it appears to the council or Minister exercising the power that it is expedient so to do—
- (a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road, or
§ (3) An order made in the exercise of the said powers by any council to which the said section forty-six applies which contains no provision other than provision—
- (a) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles, or
- (b) prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways by bicycles and tricycles, or
- (c) revoking or varying any such prohibition or restriction,
§ 5.36 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
(" (a) imposing any such requirement, prohibition or restriction as is specified in paragraph (a). (b) or (c) of the last foregoing subsection, or ").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is quite an important redrafting of Clause 33. A number of noble Lords—Lord Derwent, Lord Waleran, and, I think, Lord Teynham—expressed anxiety whether in this clause we were not giving the local authorities rather too free a hand without requiring the confirmation of the Minister. Accordingly, we have redrafted the clause. Your Lordships will recollect that subsection (3), by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), lays down those actions which the local authority can take without requiring the Minister's confirmation. We have done two things. We have slightly extended the actions or powers of the local authorities by giving them a power to decide on one-way traffic. We have added that to the power to make orders prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles, and to prohibit or restrict the use of footpaths by bicycles and tricycles, and to revoke or vary any such resolution. That is to say, we have increased slightly the power of the local authorities. At the same time, your Lordships will see in Amendment No. 12, that the Minister is to have the power of revoking or varying or amending these regulations. But his revocation will, or may, so to speak, last only for 68 twelve months, at the end of which time the local authority in its turn can, if it is so minded, pass another resolution which. I presume, would cut across the Minister's resolution. I am not suggesting that that would happen, but that is the effect of it.
§ The Minister's approach to this matter is that he will assume that the decision of the local authority is right until the contrary is proved, or shown to his satisfaction. He will accordingly, after the local authorities have decided on the regulations which they wish to impose, give them a reasonable and full trial before interfering himself, if he decides to do so. or if evidence is brought to him that they do not work or are unsatisfactory. I think that is the right way of doing it. It is pushing more responsibility on to local authorities, but I think it is the right approach to make.
§ There is one other point I may make in regard to this matter—it is one which was raised, I think, by the noble Lord. Lord Colville of Culross—and that is in regard to the significance of subsection (4) of Clause 33. It comes into what I have just been saying, and I think it is fair to put it in this way. The considerations upon which the Minister will revoke or vary regulations laid down by the local authority will never be those in subsection (4), because if any of the limitations in subsection (4) are overstepped then it is not a question of revoking or varying the regulations the regulations will be invalid—they will be ultra vires. Therefore it is only regulations which fall within the ambit of subsection (4) to which the Minister can conceivably give his attention. If I may give an example in regard to the question of restriction of loading hours, the Minister will never consider the question of loading hours which are restricted beyond six hours, because that would be invalid: but he may very well say that restrictions exceeding two. three or four hours in this particular case are excessive. So that the provisions regarding six hours, which your Lordships will see in subsection (4) (c). have no relevance at all to the question or the circumstances in which the Minister may review regulations made under subsection (3) of this clause. The matter is a little complicated, but I have tried to make it as clear as I can. If there are any questions, I will endeavour to answer them. I beg to move.
69
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I ask a question for clarification? Did I understand the noble Earl to say that the Minister will not revoke or vary or amend an order by a local authority until after it has been on trial?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThat is the general idea.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHSo he cannot amend it?
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKHe can, but he does not propose to.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for this Amendment, which I think goes a long way towards providing the safeguard for which I asked during the Committee stage of the Bill. In regard to these Amendments, I am not quite clear where the Minister obtains the power to revoke, vary or amend an order made by a local authority. It may be that these powers are in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I should be grateful if I could have clarification on that point. Then, I am not quite clear on this point—it may be that I did not quite understand what the Minister said. It seems to me that there is a limiting effect in subsection (4) (c) upon either a public inquiry into the exercise of powers by a local authority or upon the Minister's right to revoke, vary or amend an order. It would seem to me that a court of law might interpret subsection (4) (c) as an absolute authority to a local council to ban loading and unloading of goods for a maximum period of six hours for consecutive periods of twenty-four hours. If this were so, then there would be no power either for the inquiry to take into account objections to such a period of ban, or for the Minister to have regard to such objections when deciding whether to revoke, vary or amend an order already made. Perhaps the noble Earl would clarify that point for me.
§ 5.40 p.m.
§ LORD BURDENMy Lords, I should like to understand this matter a little more clearly and to have some further information from the Minister. I have no doubt that the Amendments which are 70 proposed are an attempt to meet in a compromise manner the objections which were raised to this clause when it was previously under discussion. But may I recall for a moment the fact that the object of this clause and other clauses was to save manpower, as recommended by the Manpower Committee. This and other clauses have been discussed with the local authorities' associations and agreement has been arrived at on these clauses. I readily agree that Parliament must have the last word, notwithstanding agreements arrived at in the preliminary stages. but it is a little unfortunate that such changes as these should be made at this late stage.
May I ask the Minister how he will obtain information in regard to these orders? Is it his intention to review all the orders made by local authorities, or will he act one way or the other when objection is received to an order made by a local authority? As I understand the position, the local authorities will work within the ambit of regulations to be issued subsequently by the Minister. I am looking now at column 1177 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 17 [Vol. 198]. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent. said:
There arc three matters about which, if there is no right of appeal to the Minister. the Minister ought to make certain when he authorises the local authority to exercise their powers. The three things are: that before the local authority make any order there shall be Very detailed publication of that order in the local Press, and perhaps the London Gazette,. to give it a wider circulation; secondly, that it should be easy to make objections; and, thirdly. that if there ate any serious objections, the local authority will hold a local public inquiry. With that, of course, the Minister can see what is happening. and without doing anything himself he will be in a position to know whether or not he wants to interfere.The noble Earl replied:I am very happy to give the assurance that the regulations will contain all those points.Am I to understand that the machinery of a local inquiry may be short-circuited and any person or persons who feel themselves aggrieved can step in and appeal direct to the Minister? There are two points. First, will the Minister himself review all those orders made by local authorities? If that actually is to be the position, then the saving as recommended by the Manpower Committee will be very trifling: in fact, there will perhaps be more work rather than less work. Secondly, will the Minister 71 act irrespective of the machinery as laid down in the regulations, as promised in the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, or only after all that machinery has been complied with and somebody still feels aggrieved?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I will not deprive the noble Earl of the pleasure of answering the noble Lord, Lord Burden, although I think I know the answer. There is one point that arises out of the same question. I understood the noble Earl to say that the Minister was not going to interfere (this is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth) until the scheme had been tried out. But if something appears in the public local inquiry that is obviously objectionable, and the local authority still persists in its scheme, will the Minister then—I suppose he will, but I should like the assurance—retain the right to interfere before the scheme comes into force? It is not likely to happen in many cases, but I hope the Minister will, in fact, retain that power.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, on the question of subsection (4) I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his categoric assurance. I think this is a point of some importance and it has caused a great deal of worry, but if the explanation is as the noble Earl has put it, I think it will do a lot to allay the queries that have arisen on this subject, and I am most grateful.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I should like to try and answer the questions which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, is, of course, right, in the sense that it is a compromise solution. It is not, and it never was, an agreed clause. I must put it quite plainly. There are opposing interests here. The local authorities want more power, and I have to say that it has been quite clearly expressed in this House that there are people who do not trust local authorities to manage traffic problems. We are, in a sense, between two difficulties: we are anxious to push it out to the local authorities, and yet we have to recognise that there are certain people who are interested in traffic and who are a little suspicious how that power will be used. What we have done in this Amendment is to give the local authorities a little more power—I mentioned one-way traffic, a matter 72 which was not included before—and at the same time to retain a little more power to the Minister to review matters as they come up.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent. asked what would happen if, in the course of an inquiry, objections were raised which were clearly of a sort which would require some intervention by the Minister. I would rather leave a contingent question of that sort until it arises. The Minister has the power, certainty, but as I have said before, he does not intend to use that power until the scheme put forward by the local authority has had a good run: in other words. until it is clear whether it works or not. That is the compromise he would use.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, asked two questions in particular: first, whether the Minister would review all cases—I think I have made it clear he will not do that—and secondly, whether the Minister will act before the machinery. Again, I think I have made it clear he will not act before the machinery is put into operation. The idea is that full inquiry will be conducted by the local authority, and we hope that the local authority will have at the back of their minds the thought: "We do not want our regulations overturned. Perhaps we had better check up that we are not doing something the Minister thinks is wrong." In other words, I hope it will encourage them to make wise and proper regulations. In regard to information, I think that that is not a matter which the noble Lord need worry about. There will be plenty of information coming into the department. We hoped there would be less. There will also be no question of short circuiting the inquiry as it stands.
Lord Teynham raised the point whether or not paragraph (4) (c), the restrictive period of six hours, was something which the inquiry could not take cognisance of; in other words, so long as it was not more than six hours the inquiry could not find against it. That is quite untrue. The six hours is purely a limitation of which the courts can take cognisance and would take cognisance if objected to, declaring the regulation invalid. Anything longer than six hours is automatically invalid. Any inquiry must necessarily be regarding some shorter period than six hours. Coupled with the provisions of the 1930 Act, any provision must 73 provide for reasonable access. If there is not reasonable access, the regulation is invalid. That point is slightly more restricted here. The provision will not be automatically invalid if it is restricted to six hours. I do not know whether that is clear. If it is more than six hours it is automatically invalid. But it has no effect, of course, on the inquiry as such.
The noble Lord asked how it was that the Minister had the power to do what he is doing. The power lies under Section 46 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930,
The Minister may at any time after giving notice to the council on Whose application an order under this section, or an order under the corresponding provision of any enactment repealed by this Act, was made, and after holding if he thinks fit a public inquiry, revoke vary or amend the order.I hope that answers the question.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl. He has had a very difficult job with this clause. It has had to be a compromise because there was definitely a conflict of opinion. I think that in the circumstances he has made as good a job of this as possible. Even the Minister of Transport cannot always be wise before the event. If it turns out that this should require amendment, I have no doubt that the Minister has powers by regulation to amend it. I support the clause as it is written.
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, after ("such") insert ("requirement").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 41, leave out from the first ("Minister") to end of lire 44 and insert (" except where the next following subsection has effect:")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 32, line 8, at end insert—
(" (4) Where the Minister revokes, varies or amends an order made by virtue of the last foregoing subsection relating to any length of road, any order imposing or varying, as respects that length of road, any such requirement. prohibition or restriction as is specified in that subsection and made within twelve months after the revocation, variation or amendment by the Minister shall be subject to confirmation by the Minister to the like extent as if the last foregoing subsection had not been passed.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.53 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:
§ Protective helmets for motor cyclists
§ "42.—(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing (by reference to shape, construction or any other quality) types of helmet recommended as affording protection to persons on or in motor cycles, or motor cycles of different classes or descriptions from injury in the event of accident.
§ (2) If any person sells, or offers for sale, any helmets, as a helmet for affording protection as aforesaid, and the helmet is neither—
- (a) of a type prescribed under this section. nor
- (b) of a type authorised under regulations made under this section and sold or offered for sale subject to any conditions specified in the authorisation,
§ Provided that a person not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of a helmet if he proves that it was sold or. as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.
§ (3) In England or Wales the council of a county, of a borough or of an urban district or the Common Council of the City of London may institute proceedings For an offence under this section.
§ (4) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions in connection with proceedings for offences under section (Protective helmets for motor-cyclists)) shall have effect in relation to contraventions of this section.
§ (5) In this section in the said Schedule the expression ' helmet ' includes tiny head-dress, and references in this section to selling or offering for sale include respectively references to letting on hire and offering to let on hire.
§ (6) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament."
75§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Report stage of the Bill Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved an Amendment designed to protect motor cyclists, and, equally important, their pillion riders, against the ill-effects which might follow from wearing shoddy crash helmets. That, in ordinary language, is what the noble Lord was trying to do; and what he was trying to do met with widespread approval among your Lordships. All that we did not quite approve of was the draftsmanship of the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord, I feel, need not reproach himself, for he will see that the Government Amendment which has been put down in order to meet the obligation which I undertook in answering the noble Lord after he had moved his Amendment is fairly long and fairly complicated. I think the noble Lord will agree that it does everything which he sought to do, and perhaps a little more.
§
This Amendment deals with this problem by empowering the Minister to prescribe by regulations types of helmet:
recommended as affording protection to persons on or in motor cycles, or motor cycles of different classes or descriptions. from injury in the event of accident.
§ The Amendment makes it an offence for any person to sell or offer for sale any helmet as a helmet affording such protection when the helmet is not of a type prescribed by the Minister. Your Lordships will note that neither in this clause nor in the Amendment is there anything which is intended to make the wearing of these crash helmets compulsory. That is quite a different matter. The Amendment is complicated for technical reasons into which I need not go. I repeat that I am sure it achieves the object which Lord Lucas of Chilworth sought to achieve, and I hope that it meets with his approval. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft. As he has rightly said this meets my point "plus"—if I may use that expression. I must say that my drafting had one great virtue. My Amendment was one-thirtieth of the length of the present Amendment put 76 forward by the Government, if I include that in the Schedule which goes with this clause. Perhaps I may also say that never in the history of Parliamentary draftsmanship have so many words been used to accomplish so little. But that does not detract from my gratitude to the noble Lord for accepting the principle of the Amendment.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should just like to say a few words in support of what Lord Lucas of Chilworth has just said. I am sure that this Amendment will prove of great benefit to the young motor cyclist and to his pillion rider. It seems to me that it will also save a certain amount of work for the doctors and hospitals to whom, in many cases, these young people are taken with serious injuries. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the Amendment.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his acceptance of this Amendment and to Lord Amulree for what he 'has just said. The trouble with all such Amendments as this is that it is difficult to draft any short Amendment and make it watertight. I realise that this is a very fulsome Amendment, but I hope that it fulfils its purpose adequately. A simpler method perhaps would have been to use some such words as:
shall approximate to standards laid down in British Standards Number 2001 …or whatever it might be. There are, however, several technical reasons why we could not do that.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 45 [Amendments as to pedestrian crossings]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords. this Amendment is a necessary editorial correction. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 5. leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert ("coming into operation of this section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 53 [Interpretation]:
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment is moved only for purposes of clarification. It merely defines what a motor cycle is in legal terms as we 77 have now incorporated the expression "motor cycles" into the present Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 2, at end insert (" ' motor cycle' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1930, and paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section two of !hat Act (which relates to side cars) shall apply for the purposes of this Act as it applies for the purposes of Part I of that Act; ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 19. leave out ("order applied for") and insert (" proposed order").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ Fourth Schedule [Offences in respect of which disqualification or endorsement may be ordered]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 30. after the second ("or") insert ("any offence under").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 32, at end insert (" committed in respect of a motor vehicle").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MANCROFT moved, after the Sixth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule: