§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I beg to move that the Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles Regulations 1963, dated May 9, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on May 14, 1963, be approved. These Regulations are made under Section 10(5)(b) of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, and Section 254 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which give my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport power to specify mechanically propelled vehicles which shall be treated as not being motor vehicles for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, except Part IV of it, and as being hand-propelled for the purposes of the Road Transport Lighting Act.
It has been put to my right honourable friend that the present controls on certain pedestrian controlled vehicles, such as milk floats, are unduly onerous and restrictive when one considers the very limited capacity they have for causing damage. Obviously, from the fact that they are pedestrian controlled, their speed is restricted to walking pace. Therefore, and in particular, the necessity for the pedestrian controller to have to match the same eyesight requirements of the driver of a 10-ton lorry or a Jaguar seems overdoing it somewhat, when it results in a number of otherwise suitable people not being allowed to be employed in this job. One particularly hard case of a milkman in Blackburn whose eyesight was just short of the required standard has produced strong representations, which included a petition signed by a large number of residents, and the case was supported, I understand, by the Chief Constable himself.
It is not possible under the Road Traffic Act as it stands to relieve these drivers—if that is the right term—of the need to be in possession of a driving licence so long as the vehicles themselves remain classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the Act. It would have been possible merely to alter the eyesight requirements for these drivers in the driving licence regulations, but this involves considerable practical and administrative difficulty and complication, and after careful consideration of all the implications, including road safety, my right honourable friend 854 thought that the better course was to use the powers given to him by Section 254 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to make these regulations.
If your Lordships approve the regulations, drivers of these vehicles will no longer be required to have licences, and there will be certain other consequential effects. For instance, third party insurance will no longer be compulsory and the Construction and Use Regulations will no longer apply. However, those of them—and they are the great majority—which are used for the carriage of goods will continue to be motor vehicles for the purpose of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which deals with the regulation of goods vehicles and carriers' licences. Under these provisions vehicle examiners have powers of inspection which include the right to prohibit the carriage of goods by a vehicle which may be unfit for service on account of any defect. Other statutory provisions which will continue to apply are those of the Vehicles Excise Act, 1962, under which they must be registered and licensed for purposes of revenue and identification.
It is just possible—though I think it is likely to be very rare—that these effects might prejudice the interests of other road users, and in order to meet this kind of objection my right honourable friend has decided that the Regulations should be confined to vehicles under 8 cwt. unladen weight, which is a minority of the whole class of mechanically propelled pedestrian controlled vehicles. I cannot be absolutely precise, but it has been estimated that there are about 3,400 vehicles under 8 cwt., out of a total of some 8,000 pedestrian controlled motor vehicles on the roads. Most of them are milk floats, but some also are used for delivering bread or other commodities, collecting refuse and street sweeping.
The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, gave me notice that he was worried about the consequences of these Regulations as they affect lighting requirements. As the law stands, it is impossible to exempt these vehicles from the motor vehicle provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, without at the same time causing them to be treated as hand propelled vehicles for the purposes of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957. This means that vehicles between 2 ft. 6 ins. and 4 ft. wide will need only one side light and either one 855 rear light or one reflector and those over 4 ft. wide, two side lights and one rear light or reflector.
My right honourable friend is not fully satisfied that these lighting requirements, which apply to hand barrows and things like that, are adequate for even such a slow mechanically propelled vehicle in modern traffic conditions, and we are, therefore, taking another careful look at the lighting regulations. I assure noble Lords that, if need be, they will be amended to make certain that both front and rear lighting will be really adequate for safety on the roads at night.
These Regulations, which I now ask your Lordships to approve, are a very modest relaxation of the present strict requirements relating to motor vehicles as they apply to a small class of very innocuous road-users. I want to emphasise that they are intended to be strictly experimental in character, and I can definitely assure the House that, if there are any adverse consequences, my right honourable friend will have no hesitation in proposing to revoke them. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles Regulations, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD REAMy Lords, unless I did not hear the noble Lord correctly, I gather that people in charge of these vehicles under one cwt. would not be required to have a driving licence or third party insurance. Is there any safeguard against control of these vehicles by a small boy of nine or ten, or somebody else, who may not be quite so responsible as one would wish?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I will be perfectly frank with the noble Lord. I think that there is, but I am not certain what it is. May I take steps to find out and reassure the noble Lord on that point?
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, I gave the noble Lord notice that I should oppose these Regulations this afternoon, for the reasons which he has given. At that time, I did not appreciate the technical difficulties which he has outlined to your Lordships this afternoon, but it seems to me that these technical difficulties 856 could be met by a provision in the Regulations under which, though these vehicles would cease to be treated as mechanically propelled vehicles, they would still be required to carry the same lighting as mechanically propelled vehicles. I fully take the noble Lord's point about requirements for the people who are in control of these vehicles and that to treat a vehicle moving at walking pace like other mechanical vehicles seems ridiculous. On the other hand, just because the vehicle is slow moving it does not cause less danger on the highway. Indeed, it might be said that it can cause even more. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will refuse to pass these Regulations. Surely slow-moving vehicles require more hind-lighting than fast moving vehicles, which, after all, are overtaking. With fewer lights, they would become an additional danger on the road.
Moreover, I can see no reason why they should be relieved from the necessity for third party insurance. If any alteration were to be made, I should prefer that the alteration should be exactly in the opposite sense: that vehicles which are now exempt should be made subject to the same lighting and insurance laws as those to which mechanical vehicles are subject. I regret very much that, unfortunately, owing to the fact that these are Regulations, we are forced to throw the baby out with the bath water. None the less, since I regard the bath water as being dirty—in other words, since I regard the additional provisions of these Regulations as undesirable and adding to the danger on our roads—I must ask your Lordships to reject the Regulations.
§ 2.29 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord in charge would like to answer all the criticisms together. I certainly cannot agree. I think that this is a most retrograde step. Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord read out the appalling figures of road accidents, and now he is asking us to agree that any mechanically propelled vehicle not exceeding 8 cwt.—not 1 cwt., as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, said—need not be insured for third party risks.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I 857 did not say "any mechanically propelled vehicle". I said, "any mechanically propelled vehicle controlled by a pedestrian."
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI omitted the hand operated. I can assure the noble Lord that I should not feel in any way relieved, if an 8 cwt. vehicle hit me from behind, because it was pedestrian controlled or not. And if there is no compulsory third-party insurance, who pays? The mopeds (I believe I am right, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong) and the lightest form of motor cycle have to have compulsory third-party insurance. Why do we lift third-party insurance from this obstruction on the highway?—and it is upon the highway. It is not like a lawn mower that trundles along on a pavement.
Then, it is absolved from all the provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations. It need not have any brakes at all, in law, unless it is found out by a Ministry of Transport examiner that it is not fit to be on the road. But why relieve it from the Construction and Use Regulations, which require a vehicle of this size to have proper brakes, proper steering and to be in a fit mechanical condition? Then, as regards lights, I cannot imagine why a Regulation like this has been brought forward which does not require the requisite amount of lights on a vehicle of this size. An 8 cwt. vehicle is a sizeable vehicle. I suggest to the noble Lord that the only reason he has brought to your Lordships in support of this is that one semi-blind individual in Blackburn—
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHSemi-blind?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHHis eyesight was impaired. He was not allowed to manipulate one of these vehicles, and it was a case of hardship. That may be so, but it is no reason to bring forward a Regulation which says this vehicle can be absolved from all third-party insurance. We all know that one of the weaknesses of Regulations to-day concerns people who do not have third-party insurance; any magistrate knows that.
I suggest that the noble Lord should take these Regulations back and have a look at these points. I do not want 858 to say that a man who drives one of these pedestrian-operated milk floats must have a driving licence, but there are such considerations as lighting, mechanical soundness, third-party insurance, and, for some, age limit, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, says. I cannot see why anybody—even a junior—should be permitted to operate one of these pedestrian-controlled vehicles without needing to have a licence. I ask the noble Lord to take these Regulations back and to bring them forward again after they have been looked at. It is all very well to say that this is only an experiment, and if the Ministry find out it is not successful, they will alter it. I would rather see all these doubts and apprehensions cleared away before this ever becomes law.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he replies, how many, if any, accidents have occurred involving these vehicles over the past twelve months?
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I was going to ask that question, too, but I should also like to ask my noble friend to what degree these Regulations affect the use of grass-cutting machines on the highway, because if they do make an honest man of every gardener who runs his mechanical scythe along the edge of the road, I welcome them. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is making a great bother out of very little.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I feel that my noble friend Lord Faringdon has done a considerable service in bringing out this question of insurance. These vehicles have an exceptionally full lock, and I should think that twice, if not more, during the last few weeks I have nearly come into collision with one of them because they come out into the road unexpectedly quickly. I think it would be quite dangerous to remove any obligation to make compensation, which is provided for by the compulsory insurance system, in this sort of case, because whether or not there have been a number of accidents, I am sure that on some occasions they have been only narrowly averted. I feel that this particular difficulty, which is no doubt a very real one (and suffering, to some extent, from defective vision myself, I sympathise 859 with the man at Blackburn), ought to be overcome in some other way than by possibly destroying the compensation of some unfortunate individual who may be damaged as a result of this rapid movement out into the road, which I think is typical of this sort of vehicle. If the noble Lord has not seen it, I am sure that many other motorists have.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, there are a number of interesting points before us, and I cannot help thinking, as I shall go on to mention in a moment, that some aspects of this, if noble Lords will allow me to say so, have been a little overstated. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, mentioned the question of lighting, and said, "Could this not have been specified under this Regulation?" Of course, it could not be specified under this particular Regulation which refers to driving licences. I would, however, remind the noble Lord that I have already given the House an undertaking that my right honourable friend will further consider this matter and take action akin to what noble Lords have suggested is necessary if further consideration indicates that it should be taken.
On the point of insurance, I think we are tending to overlook that, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, these vehicles are mobile and very manœuvrable, they are in fact extremely slow. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, anticipates a serious bang in the back from a vehicle led by a man proceeding at walking pace; but even conceding that that might happen, and that the conductor of the vehicle failed to push him out of the way at the critical moment, it is still possible that he might be tripped up, or have his knee knocked in some way that would give rise to damages. But in that case he would be entitled to claim them under the due processes of the law, in exactly the same way as he would be if he happened to be "knocked for six" by a bicycle, which I suppose, when your Lordships consider it, is a more likely thing to happen. In exactly the same way the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, could have recourse to the courts if one turned out rapidly from a kerb and diverted him from his course so that he suffered damage.
§ LORD CHORLEYCannot the noble Lord see that this argument is against compulsory insurance altogether? The whole object of compulsory insurance is to ensure that a man who has not financial backing can in fact meet the compensation which the court awards.
§ LORD CHESHAMI cannot see that it is an argument against compulsory insurance altogether, because I think for the broad class of motor vehicles it is the perfectly right thing. I am merely saying that in this particular instance we are talking about it does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, asked about accidents. Unfortunately, the statistics do not show positively what the numbers of accidents are.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHAre there any?
§ LORD CHESHAMI understand that there are. I understand that they are not many; but more than that I cannot say. That argument, I would admit, is based on what I claim to be the inherent innocuousness—if that it the right description—of these vehicles.
It seems to me that these Regulations as they stand are not unreasonable. I think it would be reasonable to try them. I have given an undertaking that if what noble Lords fear should occur—which we do not think will happen—they will be reviewed and, if necessary, revoked. But this seems to me in the circumstances a reasonable change. It is not so long ago that it was considered necessary to have a man with a red flag in front of a motor car. That is now considered a somewhat out-of-date provision; but here we are dealing with vehicles with a man in front of them. In answer to my noble friend Lord Hawke, the present requirement does not apply to grass-cutters and so on. They are already exempted under the Road Traffic Act, and have been for two or three years. With this class of vehicle, I think it is reasonable to ask your Lordships' approval for this change, and I hope that you will give it.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, if the result of this change is that there are accidents for which compensation will 861 be recoverable, will the Government be prepared during this intervening period to find the funds for the compensation? That might well influence me in the way I shall vote.
§ LORD CHESHAMNo, my Lords. I will not be persuaded to offer the noble Lord some carrot to sway his vote.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I should be very unhappy if we had to go to a Division on this matter at the present time because of all the circumstances. I feel that I have rather a political interest in the matter, because part of the reason for introducing these Regulations was to meet the case opened up by a Member of another place, Mrs. Castle, of Blackburn; and the Government have been seeking to meet her. On the other hand, there is substance in some of the points raised, and I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House might consider—I cannot expect the Minister concerned to say—whether it would be possible for this matter to be delayed a short time, in view of the fact that some points could possibly be put right, so far as the Minister of Transport himself is willing to do it, before coming to us for a final decision.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, the noble Earl who leads the Opposition has appealed to me. I am only too anxious to meet the needs of the House, and also the requirements of the Regulations. I have not studied what they are, and sometimes there is more in these things than meets the eye. If the noble Earl would agree, they could come in tomorrow, if need be—because we may require them by Whitsun. I think I could ask my noble friend to withdraw them to-day. But I do not know what the requirements are. They have been passed by another place, and I should not like offhand to withdraw them or to undertake not to put them back to-morrow. If that would meet the noble Earl, I would gladly go as far as that.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, that would enable us to make some inquiries in another place as to what their view is about the matter. I think it would be a 862 sad precedent if we started dividing on something which has been passed by regulations as a sort of Statutory Order. We had some sort of understanding on things in the past, so I think we must be rather cautious about it.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I want neither to avoid nor to provoke a Division, but on that understanding I will ask my noble friend to ask leave of the House to withdraw them to-day, and perhaps we can bring them back tomorrow if that proves necessary.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, as the mover of the Motion for rejection, I shall be satisfied if the noble Lord will do what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has suggested, and take back the Order and reconsider it. But I hope he will reconsider it very seriously. Some of us are quite considerably disturbed about these provisions which would seem to increase the danger on the roads. I should have thought the roads were quite dangerous enough. If I may say so, with respect, if the Minister wishes to avoid trouble, perhaps it would be as well to postpone the Order until after Whitsun.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord will acquit my right honourable friend and myself of seeking to do something which we consider to be detrimental to road safety.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, I should not dream of suggesting that the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect and for whose views on this kind of subject I have a great deal of sympathy, would do anything to make it more dangerous on the roads. But in fact he is making these vehicles more dangerous.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, that is the noble Lord's opinion. But, as he well knows, we should never have done it if we had shared that opinion. Nevertheless in view of what my noble Leader has said and so that I can convey to my right honourable friend for his consideration what noble Lords have said, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for the approval of these Regulations.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.