ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 May 1961 vol 231 cc155-220

6.13 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD LATHAM

After that important interpolation I will resume. As to what offences should involve this disciplinary penalty is a matter of consideration, since it may be regarded by the court as a part of the penalty otherwise appropriate to the offence, or it may be that they will regard it as an appropriate addition thereto. I readily admit that there may be more than one opinion as to which should be the offences which should attract this, as it were, revocation of the licence which has been granted. It may well be that there are other offences scheduled in the various Schedules to the Bill which may be more appropriate for consideration in connection with this proposal. However, I am not wedded to the offences described in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Bill. As I have said, it is a matter for careful consideration.

As I said on Second Reading, I realise that this is an important extension of the licensing procedure; but it is not oppressive; it is protective both of the probationary driver himself and of third parties, including the pedestrian who, I submit, cannot be ignored, not only in connection with this proposal but in connection with the whole terms and provisions in the Bill. A pedestrian may be stupid at times, but he is perhaps not more stupid than the motorist is at times. As a motorist myself of over 40 years' standing, I blush at times at the stupid things which I do as a pedestrian. I think I am not different in that respect from most of us when we are pedestrians. I am encouraged by the circumstance that, according to to-day's newspapers, the Minister of Transport is proposing to control in some way and in some measure what is pleasantly described as the "jay-walker", and I am sure that everyone concerned with the promotion of safety on the roads will wish him luck and assure him that he will have the support of all persons of good will in any proper steps he may take to see to it that pedestrians conform to the provisions which are made for their own safety.

Of course there may be objections from motorists as a class, and from prospective learners and others. There are those who, in chorus, will say that administratively it cannot be done; that there will be difficulties of enforcement. Always there are difficulties with changing procedures; it is our business to overcome them, and I am sure that the Minister, if he really wishes to do so, can overcome the difficulties and can make this a contribution towards increased road safety.

Here we are dealing with life and death. We are dealing with the dreadful, horrifying toll of death and mutilation on our roads, and no personal or private interests, no prejudices, no questions of pride or armour propre must be allowed, I submit, to stand in the way of our taking any steps, even the most drastic, to lessen this toll; nor should difficulties of operation, real or imaginary, be allowed to hamper or hinder us. If it should be done, then it can be done. That, I submit, should be our approach; and it is, of course, a good motto for any Minister. I honestly believe—I think that I am not alone in this that this proposal offers a worth-while contribution towards the reduction of road danger and the increase of road safety. I earnestly implore the Minister and, through the Minister, the Government, to accept it in principle, and to devise with energy and resolution such procedures as are necessary to carry it out, and to carry it out as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. I also believe that the proposal will receive the support of your Lordships generally, and that you will join with me in the hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will bring us the comfort of an assurance that the Government will so do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 17 insert the new clause.—(Lord Latham.)

LORD SOMERS

I should like warmly to support this Amendment; in fact, I should like to see it go a little further. I should like to see the period for the probationary licence extended for more than one year and make it impossible for the holder of a probationary licence to gain a full licence until he had passed a further test. I say that because the ordinary test as it stands to-day is so obviously, I regret to say, in many cases futile. But, of course, that is not in the Amendment: and I merely say that, although I should like to see it go farther, I support it very strongly indeed.

LORD STONHAM

I strongly support my noble friend in the general principle he is putting forward of this probationary period, but I am very concerned about the fourth subsection of the proposed new clause. It seems to me that the words: such revocation shall have the effect of cancelling his driving test mean that if he commits any of these offences during his probationary period he is further back than he was when he started.

The other difficulty is this. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that he was not tied to the offences, Nos. 1 to 11, in the First Schedule. It does not seem to me that any single one of those eleven offences has any relevance at all to one's ability to pass a driving test. The question of drink or drugs and matters of that kind has no relation to the driving test whatsoever, as I see it. Therefore, however desirable this probationary period may be after the driving test is passed, it appears as if the removal of the qualification, as it were, of having passed a test is quite unfair. There are people—I am one of them and perhaps my noble friend is another; I have been driving 41 years—who have never passed a driving test. If I commit any of these offences in the First Schedule, Nos. 1 to 11, then no doubt the proper punishment will be awarded. But presumably I should not have to pass a driving test, because none of these offences is related in any way to one's ability to drive and knowledge of the Highway Code, which are, in fact, what the inspector requires of the applicant for the driving test.

LORD LATHAM

May I just correct the noble Lord? It is not intended to apply to the holder of an existing licence, and therefore the noble Lord would not be under that disability, whatever he did on the road.

LORD STONHAM

I am quite aware of that; that is exactly what I said. In other words, a person who has passed a driving test would be, during the probationary period, suffering under a disability which would not apply to a person who has not passed a driving test, and that seems to me a double injustice. Although I support the principle of the probationary period, I hope that some further thought can be given to the apparent injustice and irrelevancy of this fourth subsection, because I should not like the idea to be spoilt because of something like this. I should have to oppose the whole thing if this subsection (4) were to remain in.

LORD HUGHES

I feel exactly as my noble friend Lord Stonham on this matter. When I read what my noble friend Lord Latham had said on Second Reading I found myself very much in agreement, because the tenor of his remarks, as I understood them then, was that the clause to be inserted would be one which would be helpful to the person who had passed his driving test but who, through passing it, was deprived of the protection which the letter "L" on his car had given him. I, like so many other of your Lordships who have a driving licence, have never passed a test. My wife, on the other hand, is not in that position. The first time she went out in her car after passing the test she felt that the absence of the letter "L" deprived her of a great deal of moral support; and that was what I thought my noble friend Lord Latham had in mind.

But in subsection (4) he imports something quite different. He is to subject the person who has passed a driving test to something which is an additional punishment or, alternatively, depending on how one reads this, perhaps to a lighter punishment. I am not at all clear from subsection (4) whether this is in substitution for the penalties imposed in paragraphs 1 to 11, or whether it is in addition to those penalties. If it is in substitution, one must look at the First Schedule, where it will be found that in some cases there is a mandatory disqualification for a period of not less than twelve months unless the courts so otherwise order. A person who is on probation and who has his licence removed under subsection (4) might sit a driving test and gain a licence again within a period of three or four months. So we have the situation that the person who is being struck at in this new clause, because he is not as fully qualified a driver as he might otherwise be, could be back on the roads sooner than if he had been a driver of 30 or 40 years' experience.

If I am wrong in reading this as an alternative, then we have the other situation: that two different types of penalty are being imposed for the same offence, because a person must have his disqualification of twelve months, or whatever it may be, and thereafter must apply for a provisional licence and wait his turn for passing a driving test again. It depends entirely on the area in which he or she lives whether that opportunity will arise in a month or three months or in six months. I think, therefore, that I could have supported this new clause with enthusiasm if it had been confined to subsections (1), (2) and (3).

I appreciate that it may be that without subsection (4) the Amendment cannot go through. It is an undoubted fact that if a person does not have the confidence to go about with the full authority that having passed a driving test entitles one to, he or she can get the protection which he or she has had hitherto of continuing to have the letter "L" on his or her car; because I understand that it is no offence to drive a car with the letter "L" on it if you are not a learner. The only disadvantage I see in that is that a person may be subjected to the inconvenience of being stopped by a policeman who sees him driving without someone else, to find out whether or not he is a learner. It may therefore be that, without the last punishing part of the clause, it serves no useful purpose. I do not venture to suggest any opinion upon that point. But I certainly cannot bring myself to support an additional punishment of this kind being levied on a learner or, worse, permitting him if he has committed a serious offence to go back on the road with less than the statutory disqualification that would be imposed on other people. It seems to me that the Amendment is weak on one or other of those grounds.

LORD SILKIN

I am sorry that my noble friend could get enthusiastic about alleged defects in the Amendment and really get away from what is behind it. What is behind this Amendment is a very simple principle: that is, that nobody who has merely been driving a car as a learner and has been accompanied by somebody else, having passed the test, is really in a fit `position to embark on the roads without any further qualification or restriction at all. After all, this is the position in many walks of life. Take the example of a doctor. A doctor has five years' training, but he is not then allowed to go into life and practise on patients without some further period of probation; and the same applies to other professions. I cannot see what is the objection to applying this principle for a period to the person who is driving on the roads, at a time when our accident rate is increasing, when the number of cars is increasing and when it becomes more and more perilous to drive a car at all.

Both my noble friends have raised the point that this is going to be unfair as between the person who has had to pass a test and those fortunate people who have been driving since before tests were provided for in our legislation. The same applies to the professions. There are a good many people who are qualified to practice to-day but who have not passed certain tests. Take, for example, the dentist. There are many dentists practising to-day who are allowed to practise because they were practising before registration came into effect, and we do not want to stop them; but that is no reason why we should not impose necessary restrictions on the dentists of to-day. The people who have been driving without having to pass a test are naturally a dying race. There will come a time when everyone on the road will have had to pass a test. I think, therefore, that this is a good principle: that a person should have to spend a year—the noble Lord Lord Somers, thinks it should be longer; I am quite prepared to discuss that, but at least there should be a period of one year—during which he should make it known to the public, by having this plate, that he is a probationer.

If I had had the privilege of drafting this Amendment I think I might have imposed a speed limit, as I think I should have done on the learner, too. It seems to me an anomaly that a learner should be able to drive at 70 or 80 miles an hour on the road. The same, I think, should apply to a probationer, but that is not in the Amendment. However, my noble friend has said that he will be very willing to consider any alterations of this Amendment, and I would myself respectfully suggest to him that that is one that might be considered: a speed limit for the probationer, as well, of course, as for the learner.

It has been said that Nos. 1 to 11 of the First Schedule are not offences which should give rise to the disqualification which is provided for in the Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friends have actually read the First Schedule, but perhaps I could remind them of some of the offences that are referred to. Number 1 is manslaughter by the driver of a vehicle. Does my noble friend suggest that if a person is found guilty of manslaughter while being the driver of a vehicle he should not be disqualified and required to pass a test?

LORD STONHAM

Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I was not suggesting that at all, but I am suggesting that if a person taking a driving test committed the offence of manslaughter he would be unlikely to be granted a licence. Similarly, if a probationer had to take a driving test again he would be unlikely to commit any of these eleven offences whilst he was taking his test. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the actual passing of a test.

LORD SELKIN

Perhaps I am a little difficult of understanding this afternoon, but I cannot see the relevance of that. It seems to me quite natural that a person who has just been a learner and who has killed somebody on the road should then, if he wants to drive again, have to pass another test. For the life of me, I cannot see what is the objection to that. Surely it is prima facie evidence that his experience as a learner has not been adequate; nor has his passing of the test. The next one is causing death by dangerous driving. I should have thought that that was clear evidence that the person who was driving the car was not yet competent to drive it and should be subjected to another test. So I could go through them, but I do not want to bore the Committee. Careless driving is another. These are offences which really go to the root of a person's capacity to drive; and if, by being convicted of any of these offences, he is shown not to be fit to drive, it seems to me quite reasonable that he should be required to pass a test.

I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will give some encouragement to this Amendment. It is a new idea; but, of all the Ministers in the Government at the present time, I would say that the Minister of Transport is the the one most susceptible to new ideas. He has had a great many of his own: some good, some not so good—but that is quite natural. I would rather have a Minister with a lot of ideas, a fair number good, than a Minister with no ideas at all. This is a new idea, and I really think it is well worth exploring. I hope that the noble Lord will not reject this Amendment out of hand but will give my noble friend encouragement in the pursuit of a form of words which would be acceptable to the House.

6.37 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

The Amendment deals with a subject which one can only describe as ingenious. I see that there could be administrative difficulties in having so many different types of licence on the road, and for that reason I have no doubt that my noble friend's official advisers may have set his mind against it. As one who perhaps spends rather longer than any of your Lordships accompanying learner drivers from time to time, I appreciate the protection which the "L" plates give, and I would certainly welcome the protection that a further grade up would give at the next stage. But I am afraid I simply could not accept the thesis that the perpetration of any of the first eleven offences in the First Schedule should not only be punished by the ordinary processes of law but should also involve going down a snake and starting up another test.

That, I think, would be quite irrelevant, particularly as one of the offences concerned is our old friend, speeding, and notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend announced that for certain types of commercial vehicle the maximum speed limit has gone up from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour. He said that the new law was going to be enforced, whereas the old one never was. Therefore, in my humble, estimation, the drivers of those commercial vehicles would be in a much worse state than they are at the moment. You would get the state of affairs where a probationer driver, driving one of these commercial vehicles, travelling, in the interests of road safety, at his normal speed, which would be about 45 miles an hour, would get convicted for speeding. His probationary licence would be withdrawn, and thus his livelihood would automatically be forfeited, because he would be no good to his firm as a driver. So far as that offence is concerned, at any rate, I could never willingly submit to this withdrawal of the licence.

I do not believe that the vast majority of offences in that list are the result of incompetence in driving. It is the human error, which we all make from time to time, which has the misfortune to coincide with various other circumstances and thus creates a situation which perhaps the more experienced person might get out of but which the inexperienced person cannot, however many tests he may or may not have passed. I hope that my noble friend will have a look at this Amendment, but will certainly reject subsection (4) out of hand.

LORD TEYNHAM

I entirely support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I certainly have no objection to the proposed new subsections (1), (2) and (3): I think they are a good idea and worth a try. But I do not agree with subsection (4) as drawn. I think it wrong that the revocation of a probationary licence should be used as an additional punishment on conviction of any of the offences contained in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the First Schedule. That is really what it would mean, and I cannot accept subsection (4) as drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for a learner driver; but a 30 m.p.h. speed limit for a learner driver would mean that he would never drive properly.

LORD SILKIN

I do not suggest a 30 m.p.h. limit: I would leave it to the Minister to prescribe.

LORD TEYNHAM

That is what I understood the noble Lord to say, but I was merely pointing out that a learner must drive faster than that in order to learn how to drive.

LORD AUCKLAND

As a learner-driver myself, I should like to say a word about the Amendment. I certainly do not attack it wholeheartedly—in fact a great deal of it meets with my support. But there seems to be one glaring omission. Supposing I, who am learning to drive with a Triumph Herald, passed my test at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, I could still go along M.1, in a Jaguar with a probationary plate, accompanied or otherwise, if I understand the clause aright. That seems to me to be wrong. Unless some more drastic condition in that respect is put into the clause I do not feel it will work. It seems to me that the driving test itself needs stiffening. I am going to take a test for the second time quite soon, so for my own part that would not be very congenial; but as a national matter I think it certainly needs stiffening. I should have thought a stiffening of the driving test, so as possibly to include a test on maintenance of a car and on manoeuvring a car into a confined parking space, would meet the requirements of the clause more than a probationary licence.

6.45 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

I have been listening, with considerable interest, to what your Lordships have been saying, none the less because the reception your Lordships have accorded this Amendment has been a bag of rather mixed biscuits. Before I make any comment, I think I ought to slip in a word of apology to the noble Lord, Lord Latham. As he said, he asked on Second Reading that serious consideration be given to the scheme which he outlined at that time, and I told him privately that I hoped to come back and talk to him about it in the meantime, which, due to his official duties taking him abroad, and the pressure of mine over a few days, I was not able to do until to-day. I thought I would say that, because I should not like him to think that serious consideration was not given to what he suggested on Second Reading.

Perhaps his thinking in the meantime has been beneficial, because the scheme he has put forward is rather a refinement of the scheme he outlined at that time. We did, as I say, consider the scheme with care and we considered it as a whole. I know that the noble Lord intends that it should be taken as a whole, but as it falls into what are, in effect, three separate proposals, I think they must to a certain extent be taken individually in the process of examining the whole.

With regard to the first proposal, that a driver for the first year should have a probationary licence, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind if I say that this is probably the least important part of his proposal. It is obviously intended as a method of identifying the driver who has passed the test within the preceding year. But administratively it might be simpler to provide, for example, that the first three-year licence, or annual licence, issued after success in a driving test should be one of a different colour, with the date of the test stamped on it. I do not see the real advantage in making a completely new category of licence; for it is, after all, mostly a question of procedure and depends, to a considerable extent, on what happens in respect of the other parts of the Amendment.

The second proposal is a variant of the general principle of a two-tier structure of tests for drivers. We have considered various schemes at various times in the past, and I think there clearly would be an advantage in a structure of that kind. One way to do it, of course, would be to have a formal second test of a more advanced standard after the "L" test had been passed, and drivers would not get a full licence until they had passed it. But they would, of course, be allowed to drive solo, so to speak, after they had passed the "L" test. There is a major reason why we have not thought it possible, or practicable, to introduce such a system, and that is the extra burden, which would be a very heavy one, which would be placed on the driving test organisation. The noble Lord said that it was the duty of Ministers and Departments to find ways around snags when they crop up, but this is a very solid one indeed, and it is not a matter that can be dealt with by saying that difficulties are made to be overcome.

Lord Latham's scheme for displaying "P" plates (as he called them) would avoid the difficulty which arises on the question of a second test. But we should need a certain number of new administrative arrangements to make sure that it could be properly enforced. The noble Lord and I had a private conversation earlier, and I now rather tend to agree with him that it is probably not more difficult to enforce than an "L" plate; but the snag really arises in the numbers which would be involved. We tried to do a sum of how many people might be said to be carrying "P" plates at arty given moment of the year, and it worked out, as near as one could tell, at about 800,000, which is 10 per cent. of the vehicle population on the roads. The difficulty would lie in having 800,000 more people who might be committing an offence. The noble Lord may not think that is a very great disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage just the same.

Another disadvantage is this. If a new driver had to carry his "P" plate for a fixed period (the noble Lord suggested a year, but some other period might be thought suitable—six months perhaps), it would not correspond, as I see it, with any particular degree of additional experience for the driver. During that year, or six months, some drivers might drive little and not gain much experience; and others might drive 20,000 miles. Therefore the benefit it would confer is very variable and this is a disadvantage over the second test, which can be taken only when a driver is fit to do it and involves no fixed time.

My noble friend Lord Teynham said he thought it would be worth a try; but that is not tremendous enthusiasm. I think that there are other considerations which have to be borne in mind. My noble friend Lord Hawke told us—and I was glad to hear him say it—that the "L" plate gives a degree of protection to an inexperienced driver. Generally speaking, I think it is right to say that "L" plates are respected by other drivers. I wonder whether "P" plates would cause ordinary drivers to show extra consideration to cars which carry them. Would they show the consideration they show at present for "L" plate drivers? I wonder whether the proliferation of plates for which motorists have to look is not going to depreciate the currency of plates. At the moment there are nearly 1¾ million driving tests taken per year, so I suppose that there are something like that number of learner drivers on the road. With a further 800,000 "P" plates, we should have something like 2½million plates on the road. Will people, when they see so many plates, simply not respect either? I think that that would be a bad thing.

Another point is that if ordinary drivers wear their "P" plates for a year and show themselves good drivers, going along with efficiency, safety and accuracy, people will begin to think that "P"-plate drivers seem to drive almost as well as anyone else and there is no need to show them the consideration which the noble Lord wants. Would it be a good thing for drivers at this stage to be shown the sort of consideration which was shown to "L" plate drivers? I do not know whether it is going to enable them to gain the full experience they should get, if they are treated as special cases by ordinary drivers. It is difficult to say. If I may sum up, while we are certainly sympathetic to the two-tier structure in order to give a further probation period, we rather doubt whether this is the way to do it. In any case, I doubt whether all the detailed provisions, which would have to be worked out to make it effective could be worked out in time for this Bill. Therefore, I am doubtful whether the provision of "P" plates by themselves will be worth while.

I like rather better—at any rate in principle—the third proposal, to which several noble Lords have taken exception. I am not much interested in what offences may be included; I am more interested in the effect, which may well be to encourage drivers, during their first year of driving by themselves, to set about it with particular care. I think that in the first year of full driving that would be a very desirable thing to do, because that is the period when drivers consolidate the instruction they have had and begin to marry it up with the experience they are getting. I think that a proposal such as this may do something to ensure that drivers get into good habits at the early stage in their driving careers. Of course, a scheme like this would throw up a requirement for additional driving tests. We have tried to do a little sum about this, on the assumption that they are spread pro rata between probationary drivers and others, and it looks as if the number of additional tests arising out of this would be something like 20,000 to 30,000 a year—a figure with which we could well cope.

LORD HAWKE

Does that take into account that, if the new commercial limit of 40 m.p.h. is strictly enforced, every probationary driver of a commercial vehicle will have committed that offence more than once a year?

LORD STONHAM

As the noble Lord has already been interrupted, may I ask whether he can say what effect it would have on the vast number—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said 1,700,000—of motor cyclists who have not yet had a test and for whom it was impossible to fix a year in which they would be tested? Is it better to test them first rather than test somebody else twice?

LORD CHESHAM

I think that that raises a slightly different issue. I do not see what effect that is going to have on them at all. I must stand on what I said. The likely number of extra tests that would arise on this could be handled. I do not think that what the noble Lord has raised would cause me to alter my view on that point. What would this do? The Bill already provides, in the case of any offence for which a court can order disqualification, that the court can order a test to be taken, whether disqualification is ordered or not. This would make that provision, which is discretionary, obligatory for probationary drivers. Opinions are varied on whether that is a good thing or not. For myself, I do not see any very great objection to it.

What I should like to do is to have a chance to look at this matter again, now that we have had this debate. It is difficult for me to give an undertaking that will be a positive commitment; I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that. Though not very keen on it, I will have another look at the "P" plate suggestion. Although I am not hopeful about changing my view about it, I will certainly look at it carefully once again. I should also like to look at subsection (4), with a view to seeing whether we cannot get out of it, in an acceptable way, some of the undoubted good that it contains; but I do not think it would be possible to do that in time for the next stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and perhaps it could be put into the Bill in another place. I am bound to say, if the noble Lord will allow me, that I cannot suggest that your Lordships should accept this Amendment, because of the defects which I regret to say occur in the drafting, especially with regard to the various forms of licence, which I need not weary your Lordships by describing. I hope, therefore, with the consideration I have promised in mind, that the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment at the present time.

LORD LATHAM

Having regard to the passage of time and the agenda that we have to get through this evening, I do not propose to seek to refute some of the criticism that has been passed both by my noble friends behind me as well as by noble Lords facing me, including the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I accept the noble Lord's assurance that both aspects of the matter—I think they go together—will have consideration. I doubt whether they are fully understood by the speakers who have criticised them but that can be dealt with later. On the assurances that have been givel by the Department, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD TEYNHAM

Before the noble Lord withdraws it, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that I think a good many noble Lords would like to deal with this matter in this House before it goes to another place.

LORD CHESHAM

If I may also speak again with permission, I appreciate the noble Lord's point and I want to do What I can to meet it. With the complication of drafting, consequential Amendments and that kind of thing, I do not think that it would be physicality possible to do it. But I will certainly do what I can.

LORD HAWKE

I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that if he wanted to accept the substance of the Amendment at the next stage it would be perfectly possible to draft something quite simple and to leave out subsection (4) which is so objectionable to many noble Lords.

LORD WALERAN

I, too, would say that subsection (4) is most objectionable to a number of noble Lords, and I feel that we should have an opportunity of dealing with it in this House.

LORD HUGHES

I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lords, Lord Teynham and Lord Hawke, have said. The only part of the proposed new clause which has been criticised is that part to which the noble Lord is undertaking to give favourable consideration. Everyone else has welcomed the first three subsections, and the noble Lord throws out little hope of doing anything about them; but the one subsection we do not like he is to try to have incorporated elsewhere at a later stage. It seems to me that that is not taking very much account of the debate at all.

LORD CHESHAM

I do not think the noble Lord is entirely justified in saying that. I cannot remember giving an undertaking to give favourable consideration to subsection (4). Let me be clear as to what I understood myself to be undertaking to do. It was to consider the underlying principle of subsection (4), in which I am of opinion, as are others of your Lordships, there is some good, in an endeavour to extract that good and incorporate it in some way at a later stage. If that has to be done in another place, because of the physical difficulties that I mentioned of doing it here, then of course your Lordships will at a later stage have a chance to debate it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

7.5 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:

Exercise of powers for mitigating traffic congestion in London Traffic Area . The power of the Minister under sub-section (3) of section one hundred and thirty-seven of the Highways Act. 1959 (which provides for the drawing up of schemes relating to the execution of such works as may involve the closing to vehicular traffic of parts of certain highways in the London Traffic Area) to draw up such schemes as are mentioned in that subsection may be exercised without previous reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and accordingly that subsection shall he amended as follows—

1. (a) for the words "shall refer all statements" there shall be substituted the words "may refer any statements";
2. (b) for the words "those statements" there shall be substituted the words "any statements so referred"; and
3. (c) after the words "after considering" there shall be inserted the words "(in the case of any statements so referred)"."

The noble Lord said: This is not an Amendment of major importance. The Minister twice a year has to produce a statement of road maintenance and improvement schemes in the London Traffic Area for the purpose of drawing up a timetable of orders being made by his divisional road engineers for forthcoming work, to avoid confusion and the streets where the work is taking place being unnecessarily blocked up. He has a statutory obligation to refer those statements to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Apart from two points regarding the imposition of speed limits that are dealt with by Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, there will only be one remaining statutory obligation left for the Minister to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and that will be in respect of these half-yearly statements.

Meetings of the Committee in future are likely to be at rather irregular intervals, and I think it could be a serious waste of the time of the 45 members of the Committee if, by law, they had to be summoned together twice a year simply to consider these half-yearly statements, particularly if they had nothing in them on which the advice of the Committee was necessary. I should tell your Lordships that in recent years no points of substance have been raised by the Committee which would have been likely to be missed had the Minister not referred the statements to them.

There is one other point with regard to consultations with the bodies primarily concerned. The highways authorities compile the original statements which are sent to the Minister. The Minister consults the police in detail before compiling his composite statement, and that when done is sent to the London Transport Executive, as well as to the police. I can tell your Lordships that this consultation will be continued even if the Traffic Advisory Committee is not consulted. The A.A. and the R.A.C. will also be informed direct. I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and I will only add that removal of this obligation would effect a considerable saving of labour and paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 18, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD LATHAM

I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions with regard to the future of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, of which I was a member as far back as 1930 and until 1939. Are the Committee to have nothing to do except to meet sporadically? Do the Committee consent to the withdrawal of almost all the remaining powers from the Committee and their transfer to the Minister? I am not questioning the propriety of it; I have doubted for some time as to whether, in the altered circumstances, the Committee were as useful, if I may say so, with respect, as before the war. There were occasions, sometimes not unmixed with humour, when the Committee quite energetically disagreed with the Minister, and notably in connection with the provision of pedestrian crossings. The Minister was right on that and the Committee, in the light of experience, were proved to be wrong. But it would be interesting to know whether the Committee are to continue and, if so, what they are to do.

LORD CHESHAM

As I understand it, the Committee will certainly continue in being. They are, after all, an Advisory Committee to whom the Minister will have to refer a great number of problems for advice. The only thing that is happening is this. They are not being cut out but it is merely a question of tidying things up in order to be able to speed them up. Instead of the word "shall" refer to the Committee the word "may" is preferred, because at the moment a good deal of material is going to the Committee which is rather wasting their time and holding up the procedure unnecessarily. The Committee still have a useful function to continue to fulfil, and I am sure that the Minister will refer a good deal of work to them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 24 agreed to.

7.10 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT moved, after Clause 24 to insert the following new clause

Dangerous conduct by pedestrians, etc. Any person who, on or near a highway, so behaves himself as to endanger in the use of the highway himself or any other person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

The noble Lord said: I shall be as short as possible at this late hour. This Bill undoubtedly has as a primary object that of saving life and injury. I must just give you a personal experience of my own. I am now unable to walk more than a hundred yards. The consequence is that I am always driving in a taxi, and I get a great deal of experience of what takes place on the roads by just sitting there and watching what goes on. In my view, the taxi drivers are amazing people. How they are able to avoid killing a great many people, I cannot understand. What do I see? I will tell you, and I am not inventing anything and not exaggerating anything. I find that the pedestrians are careless and inconsiderate. Of course, I must include children, but then they have no experience.

This is the sort of thing that happens. The other day, while I was driving in a taxi from here to my flat, what do I find?—a fellow walking across the road reading a paper. Luckily, my taxi driver saw him before he struck him, but how he did not strike him I do not know. There was this fellow reading a paper in the middle of the road. Now can you imagine anybody being so foolish as that? But if he had been punished for it he would never do it again. As it was, he looked rather insulted that we had pulled up and hooted at him.

We had a debate on the subject of light, and the question of the yellow lighting in Paris was raised. I think we all have experienced being dazzled, whether we have been walking or in a car, by the white lights that we use, and I feel most strongly that the Government should take further steps to consider the question of changing the lights from white to yellow. There is no question about it, so far as my experience goes, that that would make things safer.

Then there are crossings, Zebra crossings, and so on. My son went to stay with his friend in Moscow, and he came back much impressed by the strict manner in which those who controlled the traffic in the roads insisted upon no crossing except at certain places. I-le did not know whether people were being punished, but, judging by the way the roads were treated, he thought that undoubtedly there was a serious punishment for anybody who tried to cross roads at unspecified places. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed it, but there are quite a number of people who come and stand at a Zebra crossing. If you or I have to cross, I am quite certain that we warn the traffic. We hold up our hand to show that we are going to cross. But we see these people standing there, perhaps talking to somebody, and suddenly, without giving any warning to the traffic, because they are on a Zebra crossing they start to walk across. What chance has the wretched driver when that sort of thing suddenly happens? It is marvellous how these taxi drivers manage to pull up in time.

Then there are the women with prams. They stand on the pavement, with the pram sticking out in front of them into the road. Why not keep the pram on the pavement? They are on the pavement, but the pram with the child in it nearly always is sticking out in the road, or practically in the road. Then there are the people who are waiting to cross the road. Why stand in the road? Every day I find it, and even here, in the square opposite the other place, one sees people waiting to cross the road and standing in the road. Why not stand on the pavement? That is what it is meant for. How these taxi men escape killing them, when they come round a rather blind, tall lorry, I do not understand.

This is a thing which annoys me very much. You get a taxi that is going along al a normal pace, not too fast, and suddenly a pedestrian walks in front of it. How he gets there you cannot tell, but the taxi-driver jams on his brakes, the brakes screech, and he pulls up in time without hurting the pedestrian. They only laugh about that, but it is nothing to laugh about. Why do they laugh? It is mostly girls who do that, when they just escape being hurt. We have had a good deal of discussion about the behaviour of motor drivers and taxi drivers, and the question of manners on the road has been mentioned. Now why should we not ask the pedestrians to acquire the same manners that we want from the drivers of cars? I see no reason why they should not be punished if they do not do that.

I have a Stationery Office book here, and perhaps your Lordships might take the trouble to yet one of them and read it, with regard to the casualties of pedestrians. In Tables 8, 15, 19 and 20 there is detailed information on thousands of casualties incurred by pedestrians, and a great many of those casualties, so far as one can make out, are quite unnecessary. I feel most strongly that something should be done to correct this haphazard method of walking about in the roads, of which the pedestrian seems to have a habit. I hope the Government will take all the activities of the pedestrians into careful consideration with a view to fining or punishing in some way those who do not carry out what is the safe way of using the roads, and will try to drive into them the same spirit that we are trying to drive into those who drive cars and taxis. I think we should find that there would be a change in the numbers of deaths, serious injuries and injuries which run into thousands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 24. insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teviot.)

LORD TEYNHAM

I must say that I am inclined to agree with this Amendment. Of course, there is nothing in the Bill at the present time about the behaviour of a pedestrian who may, perhaps through drunkenness or lack of care and attention, be the cause of a serious accident. I think one of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Teviot was a very good one—a man walking across the road reading a newspaper. There are others who run across the traffic without taking any care at all. I am not sure that this Amendment will fully meet the case, but I certainly accept the principle of it, and no doubt the noble Earl who is to reply will tell us about that particular point.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I also support the principle of the Amendment, but I cannot support the way it is worded. For instance, it appears to be confined to members of the male sex. It says: … so behaves himself as to endanger … What about the "herselves"? Also there are a great many pedestrians who endanger the safety of the public highway through no fault of their own. For instance, there are the extremely pretty girls, who so often take the eye of a driver off his wheel. I remember reading that in America many hundreds of thousands of accidents are caused every year by either gaily or barely dressed females. As it is worded, I think there are two great difficulties in this Amendment. First of all, it accuses only our sex; and, secondly, there are many thousands of people who, as I say, through no fault of their own—like pretty girls—can endanger the use of the highway.

THE EARL OF NORTHESK

I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot in principle, but I do not think it is worded widely enough. I think that what he is aiming at, and what I am sure a great many of your Lordships would desire, is that the pedestrian should have to obey traffic lights in the same way as the motor car. When lights turn to the benefit of the motorist, there are still pedestrians who ignore that signal. If a pedestrian had to obey the traffic lights, as exhibited to him, in the same way as traffic, that would go a long way towards reducing the appalling casualties on our roads, which is the main theme of this Bill. I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment, if it can be redrafted to make the pedestrian obey traffic-controlled signals on the roads.

LORD HAWKE

This clause certainly raises a very wide issue. So far as I am aware, it would be a completely new principle of English law that the walkers on the Queen's highway shall have to obey particular rules of walking, and so on. I am not at all sure that the British public would be prepared to stand for it, because not only does it involve such things as penalties for crossing the road against the lights—which would perhaps not be an unreasonable thing—but presumably it would also involve directions as to which side of the pavement we should walk and would make it an offence to step off the pavement into the road, which, of course, could be a dangerous operation, and so on.

I do not deny that, if we were prepared to be such a regimented nation on the pavements, it would make a considerable difference to road casualty figures, because, as anybody knows, the difficulties of driving, particularly on rainy nights in the winter, in the office rush hour or later on in the amusement rush hour, are such that a slight lapse by any walker is liable to produce an accident. It is on conditions of that sort that I am convinced that the people who maintain that a large proportion of the accidents on the roads are caused by drink base their quite erroneous case. I am afraid I could not support this Amendment, though I believe that perhaps I would go so far as to make a provision to make it an offence to cross the road against the lights.

VISCOUNT CROSS

May I say—

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, will have an opportunity of speaking after me. I think it would be convenient if I said a word on this Amendment on behalf of the Government. There is no reason why others of your Lordships should not speak for a long time afterwards, if you wish to do so. I would inform the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that it is no objection to this Amendment that it contains the word "himself". I think the noble Viscount should be aware that it is a well-known principle in the drafting of Parliamentary Bills that "man" embraces "woman". This is the second evening my noble friend Lord Teviot has sat up late in the hope of reaching his Amendment, and I think we all agree that in a great many cases accidents are almost entirely or quite the fault of the pedestrian, and that the need of better manners is often just as great among pedestrians as it is among motorists.

The Minister has already certain powers in regard to pedestrians under the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960. He has now the power to impose traffic restrictions on pedestrians on roads within the London Traffic Area, and, as my noble friend Lord Chesham announced on Second Reading, the Minister is proposing to try some experiments with the control of pedestrians in this area; and work is now going on in preparation for these experiments. The Minister also has certain powers, which he has not so far used, to control pedestrians, also in the London area, in the neighbourhood of pedestrian crossings.

LORD LATHAM

Ministers always seem to try it out on the Londoner.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is perfectly true, and particularly true in this case. But I think that all the examples, or most of them, which were given by my noble friend Lord Teviot were examples of what happened in the London area. My right honourable friend considered very carefully whether he should take more drastic control over pedestrians generally in other parts of the country in this Bill, but he came to the conclusion that it would be better to experiment in London first and to see whether more control would have the effect of reducing accidents. If so, he will then consider providing for control of pedestrians outside the London Traffic Area. He did not think it right to include in the present Bill general provisions about pedestrians, because he had not yet applied the experiments in London which he is proposing.

My noble friend's Amendment does not, of course, provide for any particular regulations to be enforced. It is merely a general provision that it will be an offence for a pedestrian anywhere to walk in a dangerous manner or otherwise behave in a dangerous manner at or near the roads. I think your Lordships will probably agree that a general law of that kind would be a difficult thing to enforce, and it would impose a heavy burden on the police. And I am not sure that it would have tile support of public opinion. I hope my noble friend will agree that it is a more practical course to proceed by experiments on specific regulations about crossings, and other matters if it is thought suitable, in particular places, and to see how those experiments work out.

LORD TEVIOT

I am very interested in what my noble friend has just told me, and it gives me a hope that something is going to be done. If I may, I would thank my two noble friends who have spolcen for the suggestions that they made. Those points were meant to be covered by the clause, although they were not mentioned; I did not want to make the new clause too long. The main idea is that people should not walk against the light, which I think is called "jaywalking ". With regard to what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, I mentioned the lady with the pram, and I mentioned the girls who laughed when the brakes were crashed on and they just escaped. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the male, to him, involves the lady as well. I shall look with great interest in the future and hope (that from what I and other noble Lords have said, something will come in the reduction of the 'appalling casualties. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Pedal cycles]:

7.35 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, at the commencement of the clause to insert:

"(1) For subsection (1) of section seventy of the principal Act (which provides for regulating, in certain respects, the equipment of bicycles and tricycles and the use of such equipment) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— '(1) The Minister may make regulations as to the use on roads of bicycles and tricycles, not being motor vehicles, their construction and equipment and the conditions under which they may be so used; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, as to—

1. (a) the number, nature and efficiency of brakes and their maintenance in proper working order;
2. (b) the appliances to be fitted for signalling approach and their maintenance in proper working order; and
3. (c)the testing and inspection, by persons authorised under the regulations, of any equipment prescribed under this subsection and of lighting equipment and reflectors.'

(2) At the end of the said section seventy there shall be added the following subsections:— '(4) Regulations under this section as to the use on roads of bicycles or tricycles may prohibit the sale or supply, or the offer of a sale or supply, of a bicycle or tricycle for delivery in such a condition that /he use thereof on a road in that condition would be a contravention of the regulations, but no provision made by virtue of this, subsection shall affect the validity of any contract or any rights arising under a contract. (5) If a person sells, supplies or offers to sell or supply a bicycle or a tricycle in contravention of any prohibition imposed by regulations made by virtue of the foregoing subsection he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, unless he proves—

1. (a) that it was sold, supplied or offered for export from Great Britain; or
2. (b) that he had reasonable cause to believe that it would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used.'"

The noble Lord said: Of the four Amendments down in my name this one is of the most substance. Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, gives the Minister power to make regulations as to the construction, equipment and use of motor vehicles. Section 70 of that Act, however, enables him to control by regulation only the number, nature and use of brakes and the audible warning devices to be fitted to pedal cycles. The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Minister the same kind of powers in relation to cycles as he has in relation to motor vehicles and trailers.

There are two points under the heading of intention. The first is to ensure that regulations already made about brakes can be enforced, because evidently there has proved to be some doubt about the vires of the regulations requiring brakes to be efficient and empowering the police to inspect them. That is the first intention. The second is to allow the Minister to make certain general regulations about the maintenance of pedal cycles in a safe condition. It may be said that the poor condition of cycles is not a very serious source of road danger, but police reports for 1958 attribute nearly 1,900 accidents to defects in cycles, which is only a little less than those attributed to defects in motor cars. I think your Lordships would agree it is desirable to make it illegal for pedal cycles in an unsafe condition to be used on the roads.

The regulations that it is in the Minister's mind to make would provide that all cycles used on the road should be maintained in a safe condition, and that any load carried should be carried in a way that no danger is likely to be caused. Perhaps they might also include that the rider shall be in such a position that he can properly control his machine and retain a full view of the road and traffic in front of him. Also, of course, the regulation would authorise persons to inspect cycles to see that the requirements of the regulations had been complied with. My right honourable friend does not have the intention to make detailed specific regulations as to other constructional features of bicycles, except about the maintenance and inspection of brakes, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do.

The new subsection (2) adds to Section 70 of the 1960 Act a power which enables the Minister to prohibit by regulations the sale of cycles which do not comply with the regulations made under subsection (1). This again brings cycles into parallel with motor vehicles. But there is a much bigger private market in bicycles, and I do not think it is wholly appropriate to make it an offence under the Act to sell any cycle not complying with the regulations. These powers if taken now, will enable the Minister to take steps to deal with the sale of unroadworthy bicycles if it seems necessary to do so. Under Section 12 (2) of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, it is, of course, an offence to sell a reflector for a bicycle which does not comply with the regulations. But, oddly enough, it is not an offence to sell a bicycle without any lights or reflectors—or, indeed, without any brakes at all. I think that is sufficient justification for my Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 13 at the beginning insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF NORTHESK

Might I ask the noble Lord whether the rear light of the bicycle is included in what the Minister proposes? To-day a great number of bicycles are constructed with dynamo lighting, an excellent system provided that the bicycle is in motion, but the moment the bicycle ceases to move, all the lighting on it stops. I think I am right in saying that under the 1960 Act, provided that the bicycle is within a reasonable distance of the left-hand side of the road, no offence is committed. I would suggest that often a dangerous position arises where a cyclist wishes to turn to his right on a road which has traffic travelling in both directions. Quite rightly, he signals, pulls to the centre of the road and halts there until approaching traffic has cleared, so that he may cross. At that moment he is completely non-illuminated, either in front or behind. I would suggest that on that occasion he is committing an offence. I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me whether some regulations are envisaged under this Amendment to cope with such a situation.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I think the answer to the noble Earl is that nearly all dynamo sets have an auxiliary battery which can be switched on. Is that not so?

THE EARL OF NORTHESK

Not in every case.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The Minister mentioned regulations concerning loads carried on bicycles. I think he mentioned dangerous loads. I do not see that referred to in Section 70 or in the new clause. But if what he says is the case, are regulations going to be made on the subject? Window-cleaners are one of the commonest types of users of bicycles with loads. As we all know, window-cleaners are highly competent cyclists, but the load which is carried might be considered by a police officer to be dangerous if the window-cleaner is carrying a bucket on the handlebars and a ladder over his shoulder. Does the Minister think that there could be any risk of such regulations being applied unreasonably in the case of window-cleaners and, of course, other commercial bicycle users as well?

LORD CHESHAM

May I deal with this matter backwards, coming straight away to the answer to the question of loads—

LORD LATHAM

You will have an accident if you do.

LORD CHESHAM

I trust I shall have nothing of the kind; I expect to sit down again exactly as I am now. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has made a perfectly reasonable point here. It is natural that when one is legislating for loads on bicycles the importance or otherwise of the window-cleaner must be something that one is bound to take into consideration. Expert as some are, others are perhaps not quite so expert, and there may be alternative means. But on that type and other types of load the Minister certainly has it in mind to be fairly specific, to avoid the kind of hardship about which the noble Earl is speaking. There are quite a number of other types of load. People have been known to carry half a sack of potatoes on their handlebars. It is reasonably unnecessary that these things should be carried. I will certainly call the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Earl's point, to try to avoid any unreasonable application of these regulations.

Turning to dynamo lighting sets, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has a point. Where an auxiliary battery is fitted, it is all right. I have no figures, but I believe that that often is not the case. I do not know how much of a problem to road safety is constituted by halting, in the middle of the road, but it could be quite considerable. I think that this is a point well worth while my mentioning to my right honourable friend when he comes to consider this matter, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having brought it up.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

May I revert to the question of loads on bicycles? I am sure all noble Lords—most of all, according to their own claims, noble Lords on the other side of the House—would be against imposing any regulations that are not shown to be necessary. We have all seen bicycles with strange loads on them, but is there any evidence that they cause accidents? For the most part, I should say that the bicyclists who carry the heavy loads and habitually carry the tools of their trade on their bicycles are men who are highly competent and do not have accidents. I would ask the noble Lord, before any such regulations are issued, to ask his right honourable friend to find out what are the facts; whether this is a cause of accidents or whether it is merely a question of administrative tidiness—somebody has seen an unreasonable load carried on a bicycle and thinks there ought to be regulations to stop it. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.

LORD CHESHAM

Yes, I will.

Viscount CROSS

May I say one word about paragraph (1) (c) and the words "and reflectors"? I am not certain whether the Minister is going to be able to make regulations under this paragraph to enforce the fitting of reflector studs in the pedals of bicycles—when I say "reflector studs" I mean what are commonly known as "cat's eyes". Many of your Lordships will have seen these "cat's eyes" in the pedals of bicycles abroad and will know how effective they are. A bicycle fitted with "cat's eyes" in its pedals can be seen—I do not think I exaggerate—at a distance of three or four hundred yards when illuminated by the headlamps of a car. I do not think there is any one other single feature that would make a bicycle safer on the roads at night. The cost of these pedals is not much, and I greatly hope that perhaps two years from now it will be the law of the land that all bicycles must be fitted with these pedals. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said he was not making any regulations other than those concerning brakes. I hope he will change his mind on this subject.

LORD CHESHAM

Of course, I am interested to hear Lord Cross's contribution on this matter, and I had certainly previously heard that this type of reflector fitted on the pedal was a most effective measure. I understand that there are occasional objections, and of course this reflector is not called for at present as a reflector which the law prescribes. That, too, is a matter of which I might at the present stage take note. I do not think I can undertake to do more than that just at the moment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

7.50 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:

Amendments of Section 86 of principal Act

". Section eighty-six of the principal Act shall have effect subject to the Amendments specified in relation thereto in the Fourth Schedule to this Act."

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is unable to be here, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. It should be considered together with Amendment No. 77.

The purpose of these Amendments is to give to the authorities, in prescribing the charges to be made for parking on highways, more flexibility than is provided by Section 86 of the principal Act. That section provides that where there are parking meters there are two possible charges, and two only: the initial standard payment for the standard period and half that amount for half that period. My noble friend is of the opinion that in certain areas more use could be made of parking meters, for the general good, if the authorities had rather more flexibility in prescribing possible charges and periods. He thinks, for instance, that greater flexibility is needed in many seaside resorts. I believe that my noble friend has discussed the matter with my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary and others at his Ministry. The sole object is not to affect any existing scheme of parking meters, but to give the authorities greater flexibility in future, should such flexibility be needed.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Conesford.)

LORD WALERAN

I should like very much to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I have recently had the privilege of visiting all the States in Australia and meeting a number of Ministers of Transport, traffic engineers and commissioners of police. Throughout the States in the big cities you find the system of the flexibility of the time of the parking meter. It is a most useful thing. So far as I see, this clause will do no harm; and all that is being suggested at the moment is that the power to be able to do it should be put into the Bill in case it is desired later on to use it. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.

LORD CHESHAM

I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford definitely has a case here, and I think he has made it. I am glad to hear the support of my noble friend Lord Waleran. Now that we have more experience of the working of the parking-meter schemes, and now that they are becoming more generally acceptable to the public and to motorists, I think there is quite a bit to be said for giving the Minister greater freedom to prescribe different periods and charges in the designation orders that he makes. I think it is quite right to say that there is very real evidence that the demands for parking space in different parts of the country will be of a widely varying sort; and local requirements are likely to vary, I think, even more considerably outside London than they are in it.

It seems very reasonable that this extra flexibility should be introduced, and I should be quite happy to accept these few Amendments in principle. I am going to ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw them to-day on the ground solely of drafting. I must record for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that I think he has made a most praiseworthy effort of drafting in what is, under the Road Traffic Act a very complicated set of provisions. I compliment him on the effort he has made, but I think we ought to look at that again. If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment I will undertake to do that and to put an Amendment down at the next stage.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I certainly should not wish to oppose this, but I wonder whether the Minister could elucidate a little more. Is it the contention that this lack of flexibility is leading to insufficient use of the parking space available in cities, or is it leading to excessive revenue accruing to the local authorities who run the parking meters? How is it supposed to work?

LORD CONESFORD

My noble friend will know better, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Derwent thinks that the principal need for flexibility exists because it would enable parking meters to be tried in certain areas where they have not yet been tried at all, simply because the limitations and the charges that can be made would make them unattractive for the use of the places concerned. I think that that is 'the main point, but my noble friend the Minister can probably amplify what I have said.

LORD CHESHAM

I should like to elucidate a little, because the real reason is, in fact, none of those at which the noble Earl has had a guess. The root of the matter is that in any particular parking area only one specific period of time can be prescribed under the Act—the standard time. It is normally two hours in 'London, but it can be another period. The only flexibility within that is that you are allowed to sell half the time for half the fee. You prescribe a period and a fee which are standard, and you may sell halves. You may not, in the same parking area, prescribe a standard time which is different. There can 'be only one, and it is proving in various areas that two hours, or four hours or five hours, is not necessarily the proper time to meet the local demand.

The case of a seaside town has been mentioned. In the shopping area of a town they will probably want a shorter period, but in some cases they will want a longer period. On the sea front they will want longer, but there ought to be provision for shorter periods as well. It can be done only by having different standard times in different car parks—so that you have one with five hours, say, at one end of the town, and another for two hours at the other end. The need is to give greater flexibility within parking areas, which I think will be for the benefit of the country as a whole.

LORD CONESFORD

I thank my noble friend for the reply he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:

Vehicles left on footways

". Any person leaving a vehicle on a public footway in such a position that it may cause danger to the users of the said footway shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £5."

The noble Lord said: I hesitate to introduce what I think must be new law, because it involves the police in more anxiety and responsibility, and it involves the motorist in some trouble and care. I want to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to the motorist in any way—I am a very considerable motorist myself—but I think it is necessary to deal with this matter. That is my first point. More and more motorists are parking their motor cars half on the pavement—sometimes wholly on the pavement—either sideways, with two wheels on the pavement or with the boot and back of the car, sometimes a very extensive back, sticking out on to the pavement. My first submission is that this is unnecessary; my second is that it is unfair.

We are more and more making it difficult for people to walk on the roads which, as has been rightly pointed out, are the Queen's highway and may be said traditionally to belong to all, not least the pedestrians. We are more and more making it difficult for them—and I think rightly so. But it seems to me fair enough to say that the road shall be more and more for the motorist and the pavement more and more for the walker. Indeed, I think the pavement should be wholly for the walker. But if we must include any wheeled carriage, let us include the pram.

My only two other sentences are that I think people sometimes park their motor bicycles, their bicycles or their mopeds against a shop window, and the shopkeeper comes out and shoos them away. That is all well and good, but I do not think he has any right to shoo them away. When somebody parks a car on the pavement, a policeman comes and says, "You should not do that, Sir", but I do not think he has any right to say that. So I ask, because it is timely and because it is necessary, that this clause should receive your Lordships' sympathy.

I shall be very surprised if the noble Earl who answers me does not say that the wording of my Amendment is inadequate. I am quite sure it is: it is the wording of an amateur. I suspect that the word "vehicle" may not cover all the creatures that may be used on roads which I have in mind to cover, such as bicycles, mopeds, motor bicycles and so on. So it may be that "vehicles" should be altered. It may be also that "danger" should be altered, and that "obstruction" might be a better word. It might be hard to prove in court that the presence of a vehicle across a pavement was a danger until danger had actually occurred. So perhaps "obstruction" is the right word there. Perhaps, also, my fine is not harsh enough; I do not know. But it seems to me clear that the words mean what I want to say, and I am sure that most reasonable men, including your Lordships, will understand what I mean to say. I therefore ask that this Amendment be given consideration, and I shall be very happy to withdraw it if the noble Earl says that he will do that between now and the next stage.

I have one last word. I have had quite a number of letters from blind persons who tell me that it is peculiarly disadvantageous to them, when they walk to work, to meet motor cars and motor vehicles on the pavement. They at least feel that the footpath is for them to walk on. It may surprise your Lordships to know that, having made some inquiries, I find that there are no fewer than 13,000 blind persons known to the major societies who are employed in this country and who do walk part of the way to work. I do not think that it is a good thing to pass special laws for the blind: they themselves would rather wish to be treated as ordinary persons. But if, by passing a little clause that is justified on its merits, we can help blind people, then perhaps we ourselves may be pleased. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Fraser of Lonsdale.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I should like to welcome this Amendment, and to support it most heartily. The present tendency seems to be to park cars at right-angles to the roadway, with the rear end projecting over the pavement. Sometimes three feet of the pavement is obstructed; and it is not only the blind people to whom it is a hazard, but sighted people as well. Certainly in poor light, and with the tendency of motor car design to go into great fins, standing about four feet from the ground, this practice is positively dangerous and not merely an obstruction. As to whether there is a drafting flaw in saying, leaving a vehicle on a public footway "when in fact the vehicle's wheels are in the roadway but the car projects over the footway, I would say that that is a matter for the draftsman, and is something which I should not like to go into now. But I believe that it is a menace to life in cities nowadays, and it would be a good thing if it could be stopped.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is a matter, I think, for the police rather than for Parliament, because our legislation already makes it an offence to park on the pavement, or to leave a vehicle on a road (which legally includes the footway, so that there is no difficulty about the definition there) in such a position as to cause danger to other road-users. It is an offence in three separate ways. First of all, there is the 1960 Act, Section 16. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale need not have apologised for the wording of his Amendment, because it very closely follows the wording of this Section 16, though no doubt by accident. The section provides that it is an offence to leave a vehicle on a road—and I would repeat that "road" includes a footway—in such a position as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road. The maximum penalty here under the 1960 Act is a fine of £20, which is being raised under the present Bill to a maximum of £50.

Then there is Regulation 89 of the Construction and Use Regulations, which again makes it possible for the police to deal with obstructions by vehicles on the carriageway; and there is no reason at all why this provision should not also be used to deal with parking on the pavement, particularly if the vehicle is projecting over the carriageway. I do not think the police make much use of either of these two provisions—mainly, no doubt, because they are generally in the habit of proceeding under another Statute, which is not one of those affected by this Bill. That is the Highways Act, 1835, which makes it an offence to drive any carriage of any kind, or any cart, on a footpath. I understand that, at least in the metropolitan area, it is always the practice of the police to take action under this Act. We should prefer that they would sometimes take action under the other provisions which I have mentioned, because the penalties are higher. In the case of this 1835 Act the penalty is only 40s. But that is not a matter in which either the Home Secretary or other Ministers have any authority to give directions. The question whether proceedings should be taken in any particular case is always one for the discretion of the chief officer of the police.

The real question here is one of enforcement, and it would not help the situation to enact a new clause in this Bill when the existing law, if it is used, is already so fully adequate to meet the case. However, I am grateful to my noble friend for having drawn attention to the position, and for having ventilated it this evening.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

I am grateful to the noble Earl for having explained the matter to me so fully and so clearly. I hope that the few words we have said to-night may become known, and may cause the police to clear motor cars off the pavements when they see them. I may say that last night in Regent's Park I counted eight cars which were on the pavement. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 27 to 31 agreed to.

First Schedule: Part I [Offences involving obligatory disqualification]:

8.9 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in Part I, to leave out paragraph 7. The noble Lord said: I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the offence of driving a motor vehicle uninsured is included in the list of offences involving obligatory disqualification. Now by the Road Traffic Act, 1956, compulsory disqualification for this offence was removed because it was then realised that there were many insurance offences of a technical nature in regard to which such a penalty was considered far too harsh. In fact, hardship to other road-users injured in such circumstances has been prevented to a large extent by the Motor Insurers' Bureau's scheme, which enables them to obtain compensation. The deliberate intention to drive a motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risk is a very serious offence indeed. On the other hand, I suggest that it is essential to allow a discretion to the magistrates concerning the penalty to be imposed in the case of convictions where there is no deliberate intent to commit an offence, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18 line 41, leave out paragraph 7.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD CONESFORD

I rise only to point out for the record what is already known to noble Lords in this Committee, and that is that this Amendment has the support of my noble and learned friend, Lord Goddard, who regretted that he could not stay later this evening. My noble and learned friend is of the opinion, as a result of his experience, that the offence described in paragraph 7 would be better in the second Part of the Schedule than in the first.

8.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment is associated, I think, with another Amendment later on which re-enacts the provision in Part II of the Schedule, and the question at issue, therefore, is whether the disqualification should be compulsory, except for special reasons, under Part I of the Schedule, or whether it should be left to the judgment of the magistrate under Part 11 of the Schedule. My noble friend Lord Teynham mentioned that between 1930 and 1956 disqualification for this offence was compulsory, and that it was placed at the discretion of the magistrates by the 1956 Act because it was thought that compulsory disqualification might be apt to cause hardship. My noble friend did not mention that between 1955 and 1959, In the years since it ceased to involve compulsory disqualification, the number of offences of driving without proper insurance more than doubled. In 1955, there were 22,857 convictions for this offence, of which over 19.000 were disqualified.

LORD TEYNHAM

If I might interrupt my noble friend for a moment, could he say how many of those offences were the evasion of third party insurance?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

No; I am giving the total figures. There were 22,857 offences, of which 19,000 were disqualified. The remainder were exempted from disqualification by the discretion which the court exercised, and could still exercise under Part I of the Schedule if there were special reasons. By 1959, the number of offences resulting in conviction had risen to 47,930, more than double the 1956 figure. Even if you take into consideration the rise in the number of motor vehicles on the roads, the proportion works out at just under double. The percentage of disqualifications to convictions dropped a great deal, from 80 per cent. to 37 per cent.; but whether that was because a great many of the offences were technical, or whether a great deal of leniency had been exercised, is a question which could not answer at this moment.

My noble friend has mentioned the Motor Insurers' Bureau, which I think, as a whole with some success, tries to arrange that people who are injured in an accident, even although the driver is not properly insured and cannot sometimes be found, receive compensation by arrangement between insurance companies. I do not think that that is a good reason for exempting drivers from making sure that they are properly insured against third party risk. The law—if I might just look forward for a moment to my noble friend's other Amendment about knowing whether you were insured or not—presumes, I think I am right in saying, that you know what your insurance policy contains. If you have taken reasonable care to ascertain it, and have taken reasonable advice, but in spite of that you still do not know—for instance, if you have been deliberately misled—then you have a good defence. But if you do not know because you have not taken the proper trouble to ascertain what your policy is about, then the law presumes you do know.

My noble friend Lord Conesford has mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, would have liked to speak in favour of this Amendment, and I should very much have liked to hear what he had to say about it. This is not the sort of thing one ought to decide in a hurry. I do not think I could accept the Amendment without a good deal more information and argument from those of your Lordships who have great experience in the matter. I would put it to my noble friend that the special conditions which apply to Part I ought to relieve the court from the necessity of imposing disqualification in cases where they think it is unduly hard or unfair that that should be done.

LORD TEYNHAM

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his views. I understand it would be fairer to look at the matter again, and I think it would be most useful to the House if we were to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, had to say on this point. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule: Part II [Offences involving discretionary disqualification]:

LORD CONESFORD moved, after paragraph 8, to insert:

("—An offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (injuring persons by wanton or furious driving), committed by a person having charge of a motor vehicle.

—")

The noble Lord said We now come to a series of Amendments designed to restore to the courts the power to dis- qualify which they possess at this moment but which, under the Bill as it now stands, has been taken away from them. I dealt with this matter on Second Reading, as did many other noble Lords in all parts of the House; and I also dealt with it in an Amendment to Clause 3 of this Bill. But my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, in resisting the Amendment which I then moved, said, quite rightly, that the right way of doing this was by Amendments sot down to the Schedule; and it is the first of these Amendments which I now move.

This Amendment, No. 68A, restores the right to disqualify for an offence under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (injuring persons by wanton or furious driving), committed by a person having charge of a motor vehicle. At present that offence is the third offence in the list, contained in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1960 Act, of offences for which the court can disqualify, only manslaughter and causing death by reckless or dangerous driving having precedence. I know of no good reason for the omission of this very serious offence from the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify.

From the intervention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the debate on Second Reading, I can well understand that the prosecution of a driver of a motor vehicle for this offence might be very rare indeed, because there are generally sections of the Road Traffic Acts under which he can be more appropriately prosecuted and disqualified. But there is still the possibility that there may be a prosecution and conviction under the Act of 1861, and nobody, in any quarter of the House, would dispute that if there is such a prosecution and conviction the person concerned deserves to be disqualified. Nor would it be true to say that a prosecution under this Act will never, in any circumstances, be necessary. Most of the other offences of dangerous driving are offences that can be committed on a road. This present offence is not limited to a public highway at all. It may be, indeed, an unusual thing for such an offence as is described in the 1861 Act to be committed on private property, but there is a possibility.

To sum up, whilst a prosecution under this Act would be very rare indeed, the fact remains that such a prosecution is possible; and if such a prosecution takes place, and the person accused is convicted, he undoubtedly ought to be disqualified. The final point is that no harm of any sort will be done if this Amendment is accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My noble friend has waited very patiently to reach the series of Amendments at which, to our great delight, we have now arrived. This one, about the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, I have naturally looked at very carefully, because my noble friend raised it on Second Reading and, as he remembers, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made an interruption from the Woolsack during my noble friend's speech. When I replied, I said—and this is a matter which I always approach with some diffidence, because I have not any legal training and this is largely a legal question [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 65), col. 513]: I do not think I need go into that any further except to say, with respect, that, not having any legal training, I find it very difficult to see how anybody could drive wantonly and furiously without also driving either dangerously or carelessly, in which case he would be disqualified under the Act in any case. I have taken the best legal advice that I could since Second Reading and I am told that this is true. It would be inconceivable that anybody could drive wantonly and furiously on the road without rendering himself liable for an offence under both previous legislation and this Bill, which would involve disqualification.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Earl say whether that would apply off the roadway?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am coming to that in a moment. I have done my best to find an example of any prosecution which has taken place during our lifetime under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. I have been able to discover only one, and that was not against a man who was in charge of a motor vehicle. He was a tram driver in Glasgow who drove his tram wantonly and furiously towards a person in front of him. He could not be deprived of his driving licence, because he did not have a driving licence. I have not been able to discover any case of a man who had a driving licence and who committed an offence of this kind on the road.

I think that this provision was passed mainly with the intention of punishing people who drove dangerously with horses. If a man did that to-day, we could not prevent him from driving his horses dangerously again by taking away his car licence. I would say that the same applies to the possibility which the noble Lord has just raised about driving wantonly and furiously on private property off the road. Of course, that is a bad and wicked thing to do, and anybody who did that could be punished in all sorts of ways, and possibly under this Act; but by depriving him of his driving licence we should in no way prevent him from doing the same thing again, because a person does not need to have a driving licence in order to drive a vehicle on private property or in a field or, indeed, anywhere except on the public road. So that the effect of depriving a man of his driving licence for driving wantonly and furiously off a public road would in no way prevent him from committing exactly the same offence again next day, because he does not need a driving licence to do it.

The only thing which does puzzle me, and which no doubt provided my noble friend with his reason for moving this Amendment, is why the Offences against the Subject Act, 1861, was ever included in the 1956 Road Traffic Act. It was not included in previous Acts. For some reason best known to themselves, those who drafted the 1956 Act chose, for the first time, to insert this offence under the 1861 Act as one of those for which a motorist could have his licence removed. Before that, it was not an offence for which a motorist could have his licence removed, and why it should be put into the 1956 Act I have failed to ascertain. I suggest to your Lordships that not only would it perhaps be unnecessary but it might also tend to bring our legislation into some ridicule if we were to retain it now.

LORD CONESFORD

In moving this Amendment, I said that, of course, a prosecution for an offence under this Act would be extremely rare, but it was not impossible, and if such an offence did take place it was conclusive proof, so far as I could see, that a man should be deprived of his driving licence. My noble friend, for whose perspicacity and intelligence I have the highest regard, says that to commit this offence on private property a motorist does not need a driving licence. Of course, he does not; I never said that he did. But the fact remains that if a man were so minded to drive recklessly, it might be a real deterrent to him if he could be deprived of his licence, which alone makes it possible for him legally to drive a motor car on the road. I think that this is a good reason for retaining this power to disqualify that exists at the present moment. Nevertheless, I do not say that this Amendment compares in importance with some of the others which we are about to consider, and, since I do not wish to weary the Committee on the less important Amendments, I do not press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.32 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

This Amendment restores to the list of offences for which the court can disqualify an offence under Section 8 (2) of the principal Act (carrying a passenger on a motor cycle in contravention of the section). The section prohibits the carrying of more than one person, in addition to the driver, on a two-wheeled motor cycle, and provides that the passenger must sit astride the motor cycle on a proper seat securely fixed behind the driver's seat. I apprehend that the reason for Section 8 is that the Government believe this section to be necessary for road safety; they believe that a contravention of these provisions in regard to a motor cycle would increase the danger on the roads. The Government propose to increase the monetary penalty. The monetary penalty is something about which the reckless motor cyclist may not care at all. What he may be very much concerned about is whether or not he will be prohibited from driving altogether through the loss of his licence. If this is of importance for road safety, on what possible grounds is the most effective of all deterrents removed? I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they now consider this offence less important than they used to think. If they do, I wonder why they have increased the monetary penalty. If, on the other hand, they still think it important, I cannot imagine why they suppose that the young man should not be deterred from committing this offence by running the risk of disqualification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 34, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 8 (2) of the principal Act (carrying passenger on motor cycle in contravention of the section).	For the words "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection, there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.")
	—(Lord Conesford.

LORD CHESHAM

I have been listening with interest to my noble friend's reasons for advancing this Amendment, and I have also been thinking about this particular Amendment and what is involved in this offence. In pillion-riding there are only three things that can be done wrong: one is that you have not the proper kind of seat securely fixed, in which case there is obviously an element of danger; another is that you do not ride astride; and the other is that you have three people on the machine. If any of your Lordships have, as I once did, ridden three on a machine, you will know that it is a very dangerous thing to do; and fortunately it is rare. So far as riding on the pillion astride is concerned, I know that they do it differently in Italy. I do not know whether my noble friend holds any brief for them, or whether there are different shapes, but to me it looks highly dangerous. I think that is borne out by the fact that the motor-cycle world has accepted this state of affairs for many years, and the number of offences committed under this section is not large. I think that there is a case for including this Amendment, and, on balance, I feel inclined to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

This Amendment seeks to add to the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify an offence under Section 66 (1) of the principal Act (contravention of requirement as to test certificate). This section of the principal Act provides for obligatory test certificates for certain old motor vehicles. If a test certificate is not issued, it is unlawful for a person to use the vehicle on the road. If he does, then under the present law he can be disqualified; and I think that is right. On this matter the Government's present proposal is, frankly, extraordinary. They increase the monetary fine for a first offence from £20 to £50; but for subsequent offences they greatly diminish the existing penalty by abolishing both three months' imprisonment and disqualification. Either it is necessary to have these tests of old vehicles, and to provide that until the vehicle concerned has passed the test it is unlawful to drive it on the road, or it is unnecessary. If it is necessary, I cannot see why, in the interests of road safety, the most real of all the penalties and deterrents against the evasion of the law should be abolished. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 41, at end insert—

("—An offence] under section 66 (1) of the principal Act (contravention of requirement as to test certificate).	For the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")
	—(Lord Conesford.)

LORD CHESHAM

I am sorry that I cannot quite so readily accept my noble friend's arguments in this case as I was able to do on the last Amendment. When I have explained why, I think he will understand a little more about our view of the penalties to which he has called attention, taken in conjunction with our attempt to rationalise the penalties for this offence, about which I think he already knows, having regard to modern conditions and the relative gravity of the various offences. This I look on as much more of a technical offence. It is one that can be serious, perhaps, but will not necessarily involve danger. The point is that if there is an infringement, and danger is involved, it will be possible to bring a prosecution for contravention of the appropriate Construction and Use Regulations under Section 64, a section which is already included in Part II of the First Schedule. We thought, therefore, that this offence was not an appropriate one to bring into this Schedule and would not require a provision for disqualification or count towards the obligatory cumulative disqualification under Clause 3. Therefore, we thought it right to put it in Part III, and I hope that, on what I have said, my noble friend will leave it there.

8.39 p.m.

LORD MOLSON

I am not wholly happy about the reply the Parliamentary Secretary has given. If I may venture to say so, I went through the whole of this question of the testing of vehicles. In the 1956 Act, at one time the Government decided to drop the requirement of compulsory testing of old vehicles. The arguments that were advanced by the Opposition, showing how serious is the result of unsuitable and unserviceable old vehicles—perhaps I should not say old vehicles, but unserviceable vehicles, many of which are old—and the figures which were given by the Opposition were such that the Government really had to look at the matter again. It is for that reason that, despite the difficulty and the cost of these compulsory tests of vehicles, they have been introduced. It has taken a long time before it has been possible to devise the necessary machinery for these tests to be carried out.

It is perfectly true, as my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that in some ceases it may not involve any direct danger upon the roads; but in point of fact, as he knows, the regulations which were made under the Act of 1956 applied only to the most serious defects in vehicles more than 10 years old. That was done for purely practical reasons, and it applied, generally, to brakes, lighting and points of that kind, things which have a direct bearing on road safety. And in the vast majority of cases, where a pet-son knowingly and wantonly drives upon the roads a vehicle which has not satisfied the requirements laid down by the Minister he is quite deliberately doing something which involves great danger.

I do not ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary necessarily to accept this Amendment in its present form, but I think that if he looks at it again, and considers how very modest are the requirements at the present time under his right honourable friend's regulations, he will agree that anyone who wantonly and deliberately drives upon the roads a vehicle which has not been subjected to those tests—and it might well be knowingly driven after it has failed to satisfy the tests—is committing a serious offence. I think that this Bill ought to be amended, in order to provide that in such a case there should be a discretionary power of disqualification. I do ask my right honourable friend to undertake to look at this matter again between now and the Report stage.

8.43 p.m.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

May I say something to my noble friend about this Amendment, because I think perhaps there are rather more general considerations involved in this than meet the eye at first sight? I think he has really to consider whether what he is doing is ultimately, and as a whole, going to improve road safety. I have been very anxious throughout, and I am quite certain in my own mind that the one constructive thing we can do to increase road safety is to impose in some form or another a kind of automatic disqualification, which we have been urging, and which the House passed after a Division.

I may be wrong about this, but I should like to record my opinion that if we are going to get public opinion with us on that—and to my mind it is the only thing worth doing if we are going to make a sizeable contribution to solving this problem—we must try to keep out of this Part of the Schedule offences which it might be argued ought not to be there. I quite agree that the noble Lord has made a very sensible case about this, and of course I shall report what has been said to my right honourable friend. But my own judgment in the matter—and I should like him to consider it—is that we shall not add to road safety by inserting a great number of new offences, or re-inserting a lot of old offences, into Part II of the First Schedule. Because although, in theory, disqualification may be imposed, in fact it is not imposed by magistrates in these cases. It is unreal to suppose that that is what happens in magistrates' courts, or that it will happen in cases of this kind. All that he will achieve, if Part II of the Schedule is overburdened, is to make the provision regarding automatic disqualification so unpopular that it will be unworkable, or possibly unpassable through Parliament. I think it will do a great deal of harm if it is done.

Having said that, I will of course see that what has been said is reported to my right honourable friend, who is anxious, as we all are, not to let people who take deliberate risks escape without disqualification in suitable cases, but I would like to tell you what my own judgment is about this, because I think it may affect quite a number of cases of this class.

LORD CONESFORD

I should like only to say a few words. I am going to ask leave to withdraw the present Amendment, but in view of what my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House has just said, I want to make one thing as clear as I can. I quite agree that the re-drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 3 is a difficult and complicated matter, deserving much thought and the greatest skill from those who are devoting their minds to it, but I want to make it absolutely clear that, in my view, the consideration as to what that subsection ought to be must not lead us to omit from Part II of the First Schedule anything that ought to be there on its own merits. For the reasons given in the first speech opposing my present Amendment, and the possibility of there being other remedies open to the authorities in prosecuting, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.45 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

This Amendment would restore to the courts the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 97 of the principal Act: that is, driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions. Your Lordships will be familiar with the fact that you can drive a motor cycle at the age of 16, a motor car at the age of 17, and a heavy locomotive at the age of 21. These minimum ages are, presumably, prescribed because they are thought to contribute to road safety; if so, I should have thought that in the event of those provisions being disregarded there ought to be a power to disqualify. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

"(—An offence under section 97 of the principal Act (driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive, a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the Act relating to the minimum age for driving motor vehicles of different classes and descriptions).	—")
	(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

We originally took the view that offences in respect of this section might be of a technical nature, not necessarily involving danger, and that it would be inappropriate that such offences should be disqualifiable and hence count for the purpose of obligatory cumulative disqualification under Clause 3 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, one of our anxieties about this Bill is that if you put too many offences in Part II, which can be totted up, you may reduce its acceptability to the courts and to the public. But there is, of course, no obligation under Part II to impose disqualification, and in view of the considerable support on Second Reading that disqualification should be available for offences of this type, we have decided to accept my noble friend's Amendment. As I have explained to him, we shall have to ask him to withdraw it and to introduce a new one, or the Government will introduce another one on Report, which I have actually got typed out. Unfortunately, I was unable to bring it to my noble friend's notice until just too late for him to familiarise himself sufficiently with it to move it now, and I think it will be more satisfactory if he withdraws this Amendment and we will produce the Amendment, which I have shown him, at the Report stage of the Bill.

LORD CONESFORD

I am most grateful to my noble friend for showing me his draft Amendment just now, but I think noble Lords in all quarters prefer to have before them the matter under discussion. Therefore, I think the most convenient course will be for me to ask leave to withdraw my present Amendment, and to ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough to move the Amendment in the form of his draft as a Government Amendment on Report. I understand that is his intention, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CONESFORD moved to insert in Part II, after paragraph 22

("—An offence under section 98 (3) of the principal Act (driving or employing a person to drive without licence).

For the words from "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.")

The noble Lord said: This restores to the courts the power which they at present possess to disqualify for an offence under Section 98 (3) of the principal Act: driving or employing a person to drive without a licence. In this case, the Government propose to increase the penalty for a first offence but to abolish imprisonment for subsequent offences and to abolish disqualification altogether. I am doubtful of the wisdom of taking away this power from the courts. In an earlier debate my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House treated the offence of not having a licence as simply an offence against the Revenue. I am advised by magistrates and judges who have great experience of this branch of the law that it is a great deal more than that. After all, the present Bill has new provisions about the endorsements that have to be made on licences, which are very useful for the enforcement of the law. It seems very odd if we do not provide for the motorist who causes great difficulties to the authorities by saying, "Rather than have a licence with a lot of endorsements, it is much more convenient not to have a licence at all". In some of these offences legal difficulties may arise if the courts have no power to disqualify for the offence I have described. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 49, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)

LORD HAWKE

Does not a rather strange possible consequence arise if we make this one of the list of offences for which a cumulative three offences constitutes compulsory withdrawal of the licence? It includes not necessarily only the person who drives a vehicle on the road without a licence, but the man who employs him. One can well imagine a state of affairs in which a manager of a big undertaking, who is presumably the employer, may find that, through carelessness or otherwise of his drivers, no fewer than three of them may have allowed their licences to lapse. They then drive their vehicles on the road and get caught, and the three offences count up to disqualify the manager of the undertaking himself from driving. That seems to be a very queer result, and follows from this extraordinary clause which my noble Leader has undertaken to reconsider and redraft—this compulsory disqualification for a third offence of a mixed bag of trivialities and gravities. For that reason, I wonder whether we are right in inserting my noble friend's Amendment without sonic sort of qualification on this particular point.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Without wishing to anticipate anything my noble friend wants to say, perhaps he would allow me on1 this Amendment to make some reference to his next Amendment about provisional licences, which I am proposing to accept. As for this Amendment, we could not agree that all offences under Section 98 (3) should be included in Part II and should be capable of being totted up so as to impose compulsory removal of a licence if the offence is committed three times. A good many offences under Section 98 are likely to be purely technical. A driver might forget to renew a driving licence and pay his 15s. for a day or two, and although that is careless of him it would hardly be right that this should count as one of the offences which could be added up and result in a compulsory removal of the licence. I think there is great force in what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said about the employer. Although the employer is, of course, usually responsible for seeing that his employees have driving licences, it may be difficult for him to check occasional carelessness on the part of his subordinates. While he may be liable for any fine which would result, it would be a little inappropriate that the employer himself should be deprived of his driving licence on account of three offences in two years on the part of his servants. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment.

This is where is impinges upon the next Amendment, to which I have already referred. The point has been made by a number of people that it often happens that a person who is entitled to drive only on a provisional licence fails to apply for such a licence. If he is caught driving without supervision or "L"-plates he has committed the offence only of driving without a licence, and cannot be charged with the offence of contravening the conditions laid down for holders of provisional licences, which is dealt with in the next Amendment of my noble friend.

What I should be willing to do would be to put down at a later stage an Amendment which would provide that disqualification could be ordered for the offence of driving without a licence in those cases only where the person involved would have been entitled to apply for a provisional licence—that is to say, where he has not, in fact, passed the appropriate driving test. I think it is appropriate that I should mention that, without anticipating anything my noble friend may wish to say on the next Amendment, although I am afraid I cannot accept this one.

LORD CONESFORD

I am again grateful to my noble friend. On his undertaking to introduce on the Report stage the Amendment he has just described, which does most of what I had in mind, I ask leave to withdraw my present Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CONESFORD

My noble friend's indication, in dealing with the last Amendment, that he was going to accept this one, makes it possible for me to deal with it very briefly. This Amendment restores to the court the power of disqualification for an offence under Section 102 (3) of the principal Act (failure to comply with the conditions of a provisional licence). Those noble Lords who were present in the debate on Second Reading know the great importance attached to this by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who said that this was an offence for which it was her invariable practice, as a magistrate, to disqualify. I am also authorised to say that the restoration of the power to disqualify in this case has the strong support of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 102 (3) of the principal Act (failure to comply with conditions of provisional licence).	For the words "to a fine", in the first place where they occur, to "or to imprisonment" there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment.")
	(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This was another matter which we omitted from Part II, partly because we were anxious not to overcrowd that Part with offences which might have the cumulative effect of imposing compulsory disqualification. But after considering the arguments put forward by many noble Lords on Second Reading, we have decided that we can accept my noble friend's Amendment, as I have already indicated.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

The purpose of this Amendment is to restore to the court the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 192 (2) of the principal Act, which is driving a heavy goods vehicle, or employing a person to drive a heavy goods vehicle, on a road in contravention of the section. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 192 (2) of the principal Act (driving a heavy goods vehicle, or employing a person to drive a heavy goods vehicle, on a road in contravention of the section).	—")
	(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is another Amendment which has a slight flavour of unreality about it. It provides that disqualification can be ordered if a driver of a heavy goods vehicle does not have a special licence, which was necessary before the war. Now the only different qualification required to drive a heavy goods vehicle is that you must be over 21. Since the beginning of the war it is no longer necessary to have a special licence in addition to the ordinary licence. The need for special licence was suspended at the beginning of the war; it has never been renewed, and my right honourable friend the Minister has no present intention of bringing this part of the Act back into effect. It would therefore perhaps be a little unreal if we were to provide that disqualification should be imposed for doing something which cannot be done. The Minister has no reason to think that the lack of a special licence in any way adds to the danger on the roads in present circumstances. Therefore, he has no intention of bringing back this pre-war provision which is in suspense. I hope my noble friend will not wish me to argue that we ought to provide in advance for the possibility that in some future generation some future Minister might bring it back. I think perhaps it would be a little unreal to do so.

LORD CONESFORD

I thank my noble friend for his explanation. The reason why I put down this Amendment is that this offence is at present No. 19 in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1960 Act. But in view of what my noble friend has just said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.3 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

This is the most important of all the Amendments that I have brought before this Committee. This is the Amendment which provides for the continuance of the power to disqualify for an offence under Section 217 (1) of the principal Act (taking a motor vehicle without authority). My noble friend Lord Dundee was good enough to say that I had convinced him of the necessity of my present Amendment when he made his final speech on the Second Reading, and I hope that none of his thought in the interval has made him doubt the conclusion to which he then came. The view which I formed was supported in every section of the House—by the noble Lord, Lord Molson; by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It is very strongly supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, among others. This offence is so serious that there is a considerable volume of opinion that it ought to be one of the offences for which there is compulsory disqualification under Part I. I have not gone so far as that, but I beg to move the present Amendment, which would add that offence to those for which the courts can disqualify, as they are now doing.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 49, at end insert—

("—An offence under section 217 (1) of the principal Act (taking motor vehicle without authority).	For paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both a fine and such imprisonment.")
	—(Lord Conesford.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My noble friend is going a little too far when he says that he convinced me on the Second Reading. I did not say that I had been convinced. All I said was that I thought my noble friend had made a strong case, which is not quite the same thing. However, we have reflected upon this and we have decided to accept my noble friend's Amendment, which I expected would be discussed under the previous Amendment in the name of Lord Elton, but that was not moved. I should just like to remind your Lordships that the reason why this was not included among those offences for which disqualification may be ordered was the fact that taking somebody's car without leave does not in itself, involve anything dangerous. It is very wrong, very wicked and very bad; and the man ought to be punished. But he has not necessarily done anything dangerous. What has weighed most with us in deciding to accept the Amendment is the presumption that the majority of people who go off for joyrides and take other people's cars without leave do, in fact, drive in a dangerous manner, and I think your Lordships were fairly unanimous in desiring that this should be included in the Bill as a disqualifiable offence. We are therefore ready to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

This is the only Amendment which introduces a ground for disqualification which does not at present exist. As noble Lords have just heard, it will now remain possible to disqualify for taking a motor vehicle without authority. It has sometimes been argued, however, that it was rather illogical to be able to disqualify for taking a vehicle without authority when it was impossible to disqualify for the more serious offence of larceny of a motor car. As I informed noble Lords at an earlier stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has had experience of cases where a man has pleaded guilty to the larceny of a motor car simply in order to avoid the risk of disqualification for the lesser offence. It was after discussion with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that I put down this Amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, also stated the case, at an earlier stage, for not limiting the power of disqualification entirely to offences under the Road Traffic Acts. I think that in general I should not advocate going very much beyond that; but in this particular case, in view of the matters brought to my notice by the Lord Chief Justice, I think it would be a good thing to add larceny of a motor car to the list of offences for which the courts can disqualify. Larceny of a motor car is very often the precursor of many other crimes, and I think with the present record of crime, and the use made of motor cars in the commission of those crimes and in facilitating escape, we shall be well advised to add larceny of a motor vehicle to those offences for which courts have power to disqualify. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 49, at end insert ("—Larceny of a motor vehicle—").—(Lord Conesford.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I hope my noble friend will allow me to say that I think he has made out a fairly strong case, though without admitting that I am convinced by it. There are, I think, two important differences between this and the previous Amendment which we have just agreed. One difference is that although larceny of a motor car is a much graver offence than borrowing a motor car without leave, it does not seem to have much relevance—indeed, my noble friend did not argue that it had any relevance—to road safety. It might be argued that a man who stole a car with the intention of selling it would be exceptionally careful in driving it away so that he might not damage it.

But the real argument which my noble friend put forward, which is not really relevant to the question of safety, is that it is often done by people who are going to commit some other crime. If you hit a man on the head and knock him out and steal a bag of money with £4,000 in it, you have done a wicked thing and ought to be put in prison for a long time. But is it particularly relevant at the same time to take away any motor vehicle licence which he may have? Again, if you commit any crime which is even remotely connected with someone who is driving, would any magistrate or judge, or any reasonable system of law, think it sensible, besides the appropriate punishment which the criminal has deserved, at the same time to take away his motor driving licence?

My noble friend gave one relevant reason which he had already quoted: the statement of the Lord Chief Justice that people sometimes contrived to plead guilty to the charge of larceny although it is a more serious offence than taking a motor car without leave, simply because they preferred to have a heavier punishment and not have their driving licence taken away than to have a lighter punishment and also have their licence taken away. I should like to look into that a little more carefully. I do not quite know in what circumstances it would be possible for a man to decide with which offence he should be charged. I suppose this must be in cases where the police have preferred two alternative charges and the accused person can choose to plead guilty to one and not to the other.

But the other important fact is one which my noble friend himself stressed: that, unlike all his other Amendments, this is an entirely new law which has never existed before. In the case of his other proposals he is merely protesting against the removal of the penalty which exists under the 1960 or the 1956 Acts; in this case he is proposing an entirely new penalty. I think that before we can agree with that, we ought to consult particularly with the Home Office, and per- haps other Departments, to see what their reaction to it is. During the Second Reading debate I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, putting forward the tentative idea that it might be a good thing if quite a lot of other offences which do not seem necessarily to be connected with road safety involved, in addition to the ordinary punishment, possible disqualification from driving. I think it is a wide question which we ought to look into a little more carefully, and I should prefer not to come to any conclusion on it on Committee stage.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

If I may refresh the noble Earl's memory, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger did indeed bring this point up quite powerfully. The logic of her case was that if the stealing of a motor car is the preliminary to a smash-and-grab raid, by taking away his licence the person who perpetrates that crime is prevented from attempting another smash-and-grab raid. I remember that she quoted existing laws—for instance, the Deer (Scotland) Act and I think the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act—which include clauses precisely to the effect that if somebody is found guilty of this crime his motor car is confiscated. The argument is a fairly powerful one.

LORD AIREDALE

Did I rightly understand the noble Earl to say, in replying to the last Amendment, which he accepted, that a person who borrows a car or a vehicle without the owner's consent tends to drive dangerously? Does the noble Earl say, as part of his argument on this Amendment, that a person who, instead of taking without the owner's consent, steals a vehicle does not tend to drive dangerously, except in the possible instance that he mentioned, where a vehicle is stolen for resale? It seems to me a very fine distinction indeed, and I should not have thought it really held much water.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think it is a very fine distinction. What I was really trying to do was to justify acceptance of the first Amendment on the ground of road safety. The principle we are trying to keep to, if we can, is this: that if you are to get public opinion to accept the totting up provisions of the Bill you must not allow disqualification to be imposed for offences which are not relevant to road safety. As I explained to your Lordships, the reason why we left out the offence of borrowing a car without leave was that it has no direct bearing on road safety; and it was in order to try to reconcile it with our principle that I said what I did, which I think is often true, that it is a tendency of the kind of young person who goes off on a jaunt, taking somebody else's car without leave, to drive carelessly, and often to abandon it and leave it in a dangerous position in the road. One may think that that is a special pleading. Perhaps it is a fine distinction, and I do not wish to press it too far. I was merely trying to make it easier for those of your Lordships who want to reconcile the Amendment which we are accepting with the principle of relevance to road safety.

LORD TEYNHAM

There is another point, is there not: that conviction for larceny of a motor car would invalidate the convicted person's insurance policy, and he would therefore be automatically disqualified?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not know about that.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I should like to look into that, together with many other points. I have already told my noble friend that I think he has made out a case which ought to be considered.

LORD CONESFORD

My noble friend Lord Dundee has been eminently reasonable. I said in moving this Amendment that it went beyond all my previous Amendments because it did more than restore the existing law, and I think his plea that he should consult his right honourable friend the Home Secretary is certainly reasonable. My general impression is that the Home Secretary will not be against the clause, on the ground that it is likely to diminish crime, even if it is not wholly relevant to most of the provisions in the present Bill.

I am about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for an additional reason—namely, that it has already served its main object. I put it down in order to thwart my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who was arguing against the acceptance of the last Amend- ment, now accepted, that it would be illogical to accept it because you could not disqualify for the more serious offence. In order to deal with the logic of the Leader of the House I made myself impregnable by putting down the present Amendment. I find the argument of my noble friend Lord Dundee most persuasive. I hope that the Home Secretary takes the same view on the merits of this Amendment as I and the Lord Chief Justice take. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

I did not quite follow my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, but I can assure your Lordships that this Amendment is not put down to thwart anybody. Nor does it contain any point of substance. The position is that traffic directions for particular one-way working can be imposed in one of two ways: either under Section 26 of the principal Act (which is already in paragraph 14 of Part II of the Schedule) or under Section 85 of that Act, which is not in the Schedule. The purpose of this Amendment is to put it into the Schedule and so put right a small anomaly. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 18, at end insert—

("24. An offence under section 5 (2) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960 (contravention of designation order) committed in respect of a motor vehicle by a failure to comply with a requirement to proceed or not to proceed in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway.	For the words from 'to the like penalty' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'in the case of an offence committed as mentioned in paragraph 24 of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1961, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, in any other case, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds'.")
	—(Lord Chesham.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule: Part III [Amendment of certain enactments relating to offences not involving disqualification]:

LORD CONESFORD

I will not move Amendment 71A.

LORD CHESHAM

If I may say so, Amendment 71A is consequential on the one that I accepted earlier on. Therefore, if I am not out of Order, I would say that it should be moved.

LORD CONESFORD

I thought you did not accept it. Is my memory wrong?

LORD CHESHAM

The one I accepted was 68B.

LORD CONESFORD

I had forgotten that my noble friend accepted it. I apologise to the Committee, and beg to move Amendment No. 71A, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 29, leave out paragraph 25.—(Lord Conesford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

I beg to move Amendment No. 71D, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 2, leave out paragraph 34.—(Lord Conesford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

I beg to move this Amendment to leave out paragraph 38. This, again, is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 27, leave out paragraph 38.—(Lord Conesford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AIREDALE moved, in paragraph 43, to leave out "twenty" and insert "fifty" [pounds]. The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Swaythling, who was present until the late rising of this Committee last Thursday but is unavoidably unable to be present this evening, I beg leave to move this Amendment, which stands in his name. The Amendment seeks to amend paragraph 43 of the First Schedule which itself seeks to increase to £20 the maximum fine for the offence of failing to produce a licence.

There are three kindred offences of failing to produce documents which are dealt with by paragraphs 35, 44 and 46 of the Schedule. The documents concerned are a Northern Ireland licence, a certificate of insurance, and a test certificate. In respect of those three other documents, the maximum fine under this Bill for failure to produce them is £50. Accordingly, my noble friend, seeking to bracket together all these offences of failing to produce documents under the same heading with the same maximum fine for each, put down this Amendment in order to increase from £20 to £50 the maximum fine for failing to produce a licence. That is not to say that my noble friend considered that failure to produce a licence was so grave an offence that it necessarily warranted a fine of £50. My noble friend would be perfectly content if the Government were to take the view that a £20 fine in this case would be an adequate maximum and in that way to equate the three offences with a maximum fine of £20. My noble friend's sole concern is to ensure that, whatever maximum fine is imposed, it shall be the same in the case of failing to produce any of these documents. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 10, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Airedale.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think that this is not a matter of principle. It is perhaps rather a difficult borderline case. We have looked at it and the Amendments in the First Schedule to the principal Act are an attempt to give effect to a decision that the penalties for road traffic offences should, so far as possible, he more rational. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has given reasons for thinking that this is not quite so rational as we think it is. But in Part HI of the First Schedule, which lists certain offences for which disqualification cannot be awarded by the courts, we have put the fines at £50 maximum for what we think are the more serious driving offences, and at £20 for the less serious offence.

May I just give one or two examples? Offences which are to incur a fine not exceeding £20 are carrying a passenger on a motor cycle in contravention of the 1960 Act; contravention of temporary prohibitions or restrictions of traffic on roads imposed under Section 36; selling reflectors not complying with regulations under Section 12 of the Road Transport Lighting Act. And £20 is also fixed as a maximum fine for breaking traffic regulations not involving moving vehicles. The offence of failing to produce a licence when so required need not necessarily be very serious, and in trying to rationalise these penalties we felt that the maximum fine of £20 would be appropriate. I still feel that we were right. I am very glad to consider any further arguments and comparisons that may be brought to our notice, but I think the Committee will probably agree that there are many cases in which failure to produce a licence would not be a sufficiently serious offence to come into the category of a £50 maximum fine.

LORD TEYNHAM

I must say that I strongly object to this Amendment. I would say that £20 is an ample fine for not producing a licence.

LORD AIREDALE

The offences enumerated by the noble Earl just now were, I think, all offences connected with the actual driving of vehicles on the roads and, in that way, possibly involving danger. These offences of failing to produce documents are, in my submission, in a totally different category altogether. As I moved the Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I do not feel that I can take upon myself the responsibility of dividing the House upon it, but I would commend to the noble Earl the serious consideration of paragraph 35. I would ask him to consider whether, if £20 is the right maximum fine for failure to produce a United Kingdom licence, £50 is the right maximum fine for failing to produce a Northern Ireland licence. This is another fine distinction which this evening I am unable to follow. But, in view of everything that has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

9.32 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 43, after ("virtue") insert ("in the first place where they occur").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a small Amendment to assist the work of the police. Under Section 226 of the principal Act, it is provided, among other things, that the driver of a vehicle must in certain circumstances give the police details of the owner of the vehicle. Section 231 provides that the owner must supply the police with details of the insurance policy which covers the vehicle. Section 257 defines "owner" in relation to a vehicle which is subject to a hire purchase or hiring agreement as being the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. This raises a difficulty for the police in obtaining information about the insurance of hired cars. Some drivers who hire one claim to the police, if they are asked, that the insurance details are known only to the company from whom they hired the car, and say that that company effected the insurance. The company, however, can then claim that they are not obliged to give any information about the insurance because they are not the owner as defined in the Act. There is not any common practice about effecting the insurance of hired cars. Sometimes the hiring company does it, and sometimes the driver who hires the car does it.

This Amendment seeks to avoid the difficulties which the police are having by providing that in the sections of the Act concerned the term "owner" shall include both parties to the hiring agreement. Therefore, where this difficulty crops up, the driver of a hired vehicle, where the company had effected the insurance, would be required to give details of the company from whom he had hired the vehicle. The police could then go to them, and they would be required to give the necessary details of the insurance. Of course, where the hirer himself effected the insurance the police would be able, as now, to require him to supply the necessary details. It is a tidying operation which will help the police a bit. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 50, at end insert—

("Duty to give information

Section two hundred and twenty-six.	After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
	'(3) In this section "owner", in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement, includes each party to the agreement.'
Section two hundred and thirty-one.	At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—
	'(3) In this section "owner", in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement, includes each party I o the agreement'.")
	—(Lord Chesham.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

LORD CONESFORD

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in his name.

LORD CHESHAM

Again, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord intended to move it, so that I could, as a consequential Amendment, accept it in principle, as I did the other, so that he could then withdraw it.

LORD CONESFORD

I must again apologise. My memory was faulty. I thought I had withdrawn the earlier Amendment with a view to a different one being introduced. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Derwent, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After the Third Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—

("Amendments of Section 86 of the principal Act

In subsection (1), after the word 'charge' there shall be added the words 'or charges'.

In subsection (1), for the word 'calculated' there shall be substituted the word 'prescribed'.

For subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsection: '(2) The designation order shall prescribe the period or periods not exceeding which vehicles may be left in each parking place and shall prescribe the amount of the charge or charges to be made for those periods. The prescribed charge appropriate to each such prescribed period is hereinafter referred to as the "initial charge".'

In subsection (4), paragraph (c), the words after 'is less than' shall be omitted and the following words shall be inserted: 'the prescribed period for which the appropriate prescribed charge has been made paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not have effect, but it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the appropriate prescribed charge has not been duly paid for the vehicle.'

For subsection (5), there shall be substituted the following subsection: 'Where no such apparatus is in use, the designation order may provide that the appropriate prescribed charge shall be payable on the vehicle's being taken away from the parking place.'").—(Lord Conesford.)

LORD CHESHAM

As in the case of the main Amendment. I should like to accept the principle of this Amendment, if the noble Lord will withdraw it now, subject to redrafting.

LORD CONESFORD

I now think I was completely right in saying that I did not intend to move the Amendment. But if my noble friend prefers it that way, I have much pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment which I never meant to move.

LORD CHESHAM

If I have done the wrong thing, I apologise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.