May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make to the House in regard to Ireland?

I desire to make a statement to the House of Commons on the Irish position before we publish certain documents in Ireland. During the last few weeks the Government have been in touch with intermediaries who have been anxious to bring about a better understanding. There have been no negotiations, but certain people who offered their services have seen both sides and have thus enabled the Government to arrive at certain conclusions about the position in Ireland. As the result of their consideration, they have, after a very careful survey of the situation, decided upon the course which I now propose to unfold to the House. They are convinced that the majority of the people of Ireland of all sections are anxious for peace and for a fair settlement. The Government on their side are no less anxious for peace and a fair and lasting settlement, and in this respect I feel confident they represent the views of the whole of the people of Great Britain. On the other hand, the Government are also very regretfully convinced that the party, or rather the section which controls the organisation of murder and outrage in Ireland, is not yet ready for a real peace, that is to say, for a peace that will accept the only basis on which peace can be concluded—a basis which would be consistent with the unbroken unity of the United Kingdom. Their communications are all conceived in the spirit of proposals from an independent belligerent power offering peace to another independent belligerent with whom they are at war, and to whom they are in a position to dictate.

In these circumstances the Government determined on the double policy which I propose now to declare. On the one hand they feel they have no option but to continue and indeed to intensify their campaign against that small but highly organised and desperate minority who are using murder and outrage in order to obtain the impossible and bring peace neither to Ireland nor to Great Britain, but, on the other hand, they are anxious to open and encourage every channel whereby the forces in Ireland which are really anxious for an honourable settlement can find expression and so lead to negotiations which may produce a real and lasting peace. This is the general policy of the Government, and I want the House to understand that this is a considered policy that aims on the one hand at the repression of crime and on the other at preparing the way towards a better understanding between the two peoples. Two very important documents have been received from Ireland in the course of the last few days. The first, and the most important of them, is a document which I have received from the Galway County Council. It is a very remarkable document, and it is remarkable from the fact that the Galway County Council, I be- lieve, is almost entirely Sinn Fein. It has proclaimed its adhesion to the Republican party and I rather think to the Dail Eireann, which is supposed to be the assembly that speaks on behalf of this body.

They sent a resolution, which has already appeared in the Press. This, if I may so put it, is the first area of dry land which has shown itself after the deluge of unconstitutionalism in that part of the country. It is a return on the part of a very important body to constitutional methods—an avowed return. After all, the Galway County Council is a body set up under the authority of the Imperial Parliament. It derives its authority from this Parliament, and it is a constitutional xponent of the views of that particular part of the country. It has a full constitutional right to communicate with the Imperial Government upon any question which affects the peace of that area, and a communication from that body to the Imperial Government couched in these terms is in itself, I think, a very welcome sign of the new spirit coming over Ireland. I think it is our duty to encourage it, because in doing so we encourage a return to constitutional methods in an area which has been one of the most disturbed in Ireland, one of the most difficult in Ireland, and which, if I may use the term, has until quite recently been completely in the hands of the rebel forces in Ireland. It is only a very short time ago that I was talking to the General Officer Commanding that area, and his opinion at that time was that the recognition of authority would be difficult to establish in that county. This is, therefore, a very important and promising episode in the relations between the two countries. The resolution was carried, I believe, against the protests of the Sinn Fein leaders in that area. That makes it still more important. A similar resolution, not in exactly the same terms, but breathing the same spirit, was carried by the Galway Urban Council.

There is also a telegram which was sent to me by a distinguished, a very able and very highly respected Irish priest, Father O'Flanagan. It is true—and one must not forget it—that although he calls himself, in the absence of Mr, De Valera, acting president of Sinn Fein, his action has been repudiated by the heads of the organisation which is responsible, in our judgment, for murder in Ireland. The House must bear in mind, when they come to seek the reason for our adopting a twofold policy, that, although Father O'Flanagan, speaking on behalf, as he thought, of at least one section of Sinn Fein, has indicated the desire for peace, yet the moment he sent that telegram he was repudiated by the heads of the organisation who are responsible for murder. That is why I say that, in my judgment, that organisation is not of the same opinion as the majority of people in Ireland at the present moment. We must base our policy upon a recognition of those two facts. The resolution of the Galway County Council has been very widely advertised in the Press, and rightly so. It condemns the murders. II condemns reprisals, but under the circumstances, I think it is too much to expect a Sinn Fein body not to express some condemnation of that character— they would lose their authority with Irish opinion if they did not. But it requires great courage on their part to condemn the murders committed by the Irish Re public Army, and let us frankly admit their courage in doing so. I may begin with that and it is the first resolution of the kind that I have received from any body. They say that they believe that this unfortunate state of affairs is detrimental to the interests of both countries in such a crisis of the world's affairs. That is quite true. Now they come to a practical suggestion— We, therefore, as adherents of Dail Eireann, request that body to appoint three delegates. They suggest that the initiative lies with the British Government, who should withdraw the bar on the meeting of Dail Eireann for the purpose of appointing delegates. That is the practical suggestion which they put forward. At the present moment that body is not permitted to meet, and of course we cannot recognise it, for to recognise it as a separate body is to recognise that the part of the country which they represent constitutes a separate republic apart from the United Kingdom. That cannot be, and it is right, that although I have said it here once or twice, that should be repeated, because, unfortunately, in Ireland they are apt to emphasise the things that suit them, and not to call attention to the things that do not suit them. I do not think they are any exception in that respect to people in other parts of the world. It is necessary that that should be emphasised, because it is no use encouraging impossible hopes.

We do not, therefore, recognise the body called the Dail Eireann. But when you come to the members individually, they are the people who have been elected, under the constitution of this country to this House. They are the people who have been elected by the constituencies which have been parcelled out by this House, on a franchise which has been agreed upon by this House, at the general election at which this House of Commons was elected. They are not permitted to meet at the present moment, and the question is whether it is desirable that they should be permitted to do so in order to consider the new situation which has arisen in Ireland. There are very practical difficulties in the way. Some of these members have, in our judgment, been guilty of crimes which would make them liable to prosecution and punishment, whether in Ireland, or Great Britain, or in any other civilised country in the world. We cannot possibly grant to those who have been guilty of crimes of violence, of murder, of very brutal murder, a safe conduct which we would not grant to any British Member of the House of Commons in similar circumstances. It is too much to ask of any Government, however desirous they might be for peace in Ireland, that they should ask the forces of the Crown, who have been subjected to all these outrages, and whose comrades have been struck down through the action of these men to permit them to go through under the safe conduct of the British Government. We must therefore make an exception in the case of those men. This is the reply which it is proposed I should send to-day to the Secretary of the Galway County Council: I have received your letter of the 4th instant, forwarding copy of a resolution passed by the Galway County Council, and wish to assure your Council that the Government welcome every indication on the part of representative persons and bodies in Ireland of a desire to co-operate in bringing to an end the present unhappy state of lawlessness and ensuring a return to constitutional methods in that country. The first necessary preliminary to the re-establishment of normal conditions is that murder and crimes of violence shall cease. It is to that end that the efforts of the Irish Executive have been constantly directed, and until it has been attained no progress can be made towards a political settlement. The Government are prepared to facilitate the meeting together for this purpose of persons duly elected to represent constituencies in Ireland or any part of Ireland. There are, however, certain individuals who are gravely implicated in the commission of crime so serious that the Government cannot consent to abandon their elementary duty of bringing such persons to trial. To all members except these individuals a safe conduct would be granted by the Government. It should be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government must insist that effective measures be taken to ensure the cessation of murder and other crimes of violence and the surrender of all arms unlawfully held. Before reading the next paragraph I should say that the Galway County Council did not recognise the authority of the Irish Local Government Board. They have now returned to their allegiance in that respect, and that in itself is a promising incident.

The letter proceeds: I would add that the Government have learnt with satisfaction of the action of your Council in submitting their accounts to audit by the Local Government Board, and that the fullest support can be assured to every local authority which loyally carries out its obligations under the law. It will be clear from this letter that the Government, while anxious to explore every avenue which may lead to peace, and to remove, so far as possible, any obstacle which may stand in the way of persons in Ireland who desire peace, are-determined to use all the forces at their command to stamp out murder and outrage, and to disarm ill-affected persons. With this object the Government has decided to take further action to which I shall refer later. Perhaps I had better, before doing so, read the telegram which has been sent in reply to the communications of Father O'Flanagan— I have received your message. His Majesty's Government does not lag behind any section of the Irish people in the desire that Ireland should enjoy to the full the blessing of peace and prosperity. We are prepared to afford facilities for the free discussion of the whole situation by the duly-elected representatives of constituencies in Ireland or any part of Ireland. There are, however, certain individuals who are gravely implicated in the commission of crime so serious that the Government cannot consent to abandon their elementary duty of bringing such persons to trial. To all members except these individuals a safe conduct will be granted by the Government. It should be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government must insist that effective measures be taken to ensure the cessation of murder and other crimes of violence and the surrender of all arms unlawfully held. I have in the House of Commons on the 16th August and on several subsequent occasions defined the fundamental conditions to which any political settlement must conform. His Majesty's Government adhere absolutely to those conditions, and would be glad to learn that the party which you represent are prepared to accept them. That is the reply which it is proposed to send to Father O'Flanagan.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

We are prepared to give a list of those with whom we will treat.

My request is perfectly fair.

Yes. Let me say at once—I think it is very important to say it—that there should be no suspicion of any breach of faith if they do meet. What I mean is that it would be very unfortunate if the Members came to a conference under the impression that they had a safe conduct, and later the feeling was created that there had been an act of treachery on the part of the British Government. Nothing could be worse than that from the point of view of our honour and of the peace of Ireland. We shall certainly let them know beforehand who are the Members to whom we are prepared to give a safe conduct, and who are the Members to whom we could not possibly give a safe conduct. Due protection will be afforded to those who have a safe conduct by the police, and by the whole forces of the Crown who will be available against any possible attack upon them.

I come now to the second part of my statement. After a good many consultations which the Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal—who is not here at present—and I have had with many individuals who stated that they were in communication with representative men in Ireland, which communications might be utilised in the interests of peace, we have come to certain conclusions. It is very difficult, of course, to know to what extent those persons can really speak on behalf of those they assume to represent in this matter.

That is no imputation upon the good faith of those concerned—not the least. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Asquith) and I during the war had to measure the value of communications of that kind in reference to Germany, Austria, Turkey, and other countries, for there were constant communications with men who came with the very best faith and a certain amount of authority: As he knows very well, in the vast majority of cases, when we pursued the matter we found it ended in nothing. That was disappointing. Therefore that experience made me a good deal more cautious when I came to deal with men who professed to be in a position to make peace so far as Ireland is concerned.

However, it is our business to give them every opportunity, because peace is so very important. But one thing has to be made quite clear. I regret it. But as regards the men whom we know to be directing the murders, I think it will be found that they have not given us any indication that they are prepared to surrender upon the only terms which this country could possibly accept, consistently either with its own self-respect or with a prospect of enduring peace for Ireland. I very much regret that. We must consider that side by side with the encouragement which we are prepared to give to all those who are anxious for peace—and they are growing in numbers, in influence, and what is much more significant, in independence. This means that intimidation is breaking down. We are determined to do all in our power to break up these terrorists who are more or less organised, because I do not think it will be possible for Ireland to recover that independence which is essential to her if she is to make peace, until these men have been brought to justice or at any rate to surrender. We have, therefore, been driven to the conclusion, especially in the last two very terrible years, that we must take stronger action in certain disturbed areas in Ireland. I must say I came to that conclusion some time ago. There were, however, practical difficulties in the way, otherwise action would have been taken sooner.

What is the position, more particularly in the south-west of Ireland? You have got there organised insurgent forces.

Until recently they dwelt, I will not say in complete immunity, but in something approaching it, in their own towns and villages. The very strong action which has been taken has forced them to take to the hills, and there they are organising bands. They attack the police. They ambush the police. They intimidate men of their own race who are tired of this terrorism. It is necessary that they should be captured and broken up. The difficulties in the way are twofold. These men are dressed either as civilians —and therefore it is difficult for the police to identify them and distinguish between them and other civilians in the area—or they are dressed in captured British uniforms. Let me say this to the House, and I think it is right that it should be said: some of the outrages—and I had a special conversation upon the subject only yesterday with the Commander-in-Chief and General Tudor, as well as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—have undoubtedly been committed by these people dressed in British uniforms. There was one very notable case, and that was the raid upon the Bishop of Killaloe. That was a raid upon the bishop's house by men with blackened faces.

It was supposed that they had raided it in order to find documents, but if so there was no reason why they should have blackened their faces, and certainly no documents have ever been delivered at Dublin Castle. We know absolutely nothing as to who those persons were individually, but we know where that outrage came from. That is an indication of the kind of thing that is going on where the blame is imputed to the forces of the Crown quite unjustly. Further, they have their own private quarrels; they sometimes wish for propaganda purposes to impute outrages to the forces of the Crown, and they have also got their own suspects. They know that information is given to the police and they think the persons that they attack are guilty of giving it. Often it is the wrong person, but they do not know that, and all that figures as if the outrages had been committed by the British soldiers or the police, and that is not true.

In this area an attack was made upon the police by men who were dressed in British uniforms and trench helmets. That has added to the difficulty. There you have men who are armed and are either dressed like ordinary civilians or else are dressed in British uniforms, and it is quite impossible in that area for the police or the soldiers to hunt down these insurrectionary forces who are intimidating the country, and are guilty of murder, unless some very strong action is taken. We have decided to proclaim in that quarter of Ireland martial law and to mete out exactly the same treatment to these people as would be done if they were open rebels. There is no doubt at all that if these men were open rebels with some distinctive mark showing that they were rebels armed openly for the purpose of shooting down soldiers, the soldiers would not only have the right but it would be their duty to shoot back. Treachery should not be a protection. We are only meting out the ordinary rules of civilised warfare. I hope the House will not press me as to the exact area which is going to be proclaimed, because we want to have the notices in the areas before the actual areas are proclaimed. I must therefore very respectfully decline to specify the exact areas which are to be proclaimed.

What is proposed to be done is this. First of all there will be a proclamation of martial law, and then under that a proclamation will be issued. The effect will be to demand the surrender of all arms and uniforms by a certain date within that area. The surrender can be made either to an officer of the Crown, or to the police, or to a military officer, or to the parish priest provided the parish priest surrenders them afterwards to the proper officer in the area. That is in order to facilitate the surrender of arms. You will find men who will say, "We shall be afraid of coming in to surrender because we shall be shot." After all, what we want to encourage is the surrender of arms, and we propose to state that the arms can be surrendered to the parish priest, provided they are handed over immediately afterwards, by a given date.

The effect will be that after a certain date unauthorised persons found in possession of arms in the specified areas to which martial law is applied will be treated as rebels, and will be liable on conviction by a military court to the penalty of death. The same penalty will be applied to the unauthorised wearing of the uniforms of any of His Majesty's forces, and to the aiding and abetting and harbouring of rebels. Reasonable time will be allowed for the surrender of arms before these drastic provisions are put into force. We hope to have the co-operation of the parish priest for these areas in arranging for the surrender Ample notice will be given to enable all persons in those areas who have been so misguided as to array themselves against order and law, and the authority of the Crown, to surrender their arms under the conditions specified. Trial will be by a military court. I deeply regret that it should be necessary to do this, or to declare martial law. I would infinitely have preferred that the control of the administration of the whole of Ireland should be in the hands of the civil authorities, but the recent outrages which have taken place have made it necessary that we should take these steps in this part of Ireland. We are eager for peace. We propose to encourage every authority, every organisation, every individual who is prepared to assist in the negotiations for peace in Ireland. We are, however, also convinced that peace is impossible so long as these forces are perpetrating outrage and intimidating the population, because the people themselves are afraid to talk peace. Where you have men of exceptional courage prepared to take the lead, like Mr. Sweetman in Galway, who, I think, is a Member of this House—and I have no doubt at all that the risk is great —the people follow, as they have done in Galway, quite unanimously. Father O'Flanagan is also a man of great courage, and he has shown that courage in the past. The moment they do so, however, they are repudiated by this gang, who are still endeavouring to intimidate the people and prevent them coming to a peaceable parley. I am sure that it is essential, in order to secure peace in Ireland, that you should convince the whole of the people in Ireland that the authority of the law and the authority of the Empire is paramount, and that we mean to keep it paramount; but that, having established that fact, the British House of Commons and the British nation are willing to parley with the people of Ireland with a view to establishing peace and goodwill and friendship.

As there is no Question before the House, I can only address it by permission. I should like to say—if it be necessary to put myself in order, I will conclude with a question to the Prime Minister—that the statement which has just been made is so grave in character, in both its aspects, that in my judgment and in the interests of both peace and order in Ireland, it would be desirable that the House should have time to reflect upon it, and that then, when that time has been given, the Government should, if the request be preferred, give us an opportunity of debating it. I venture to think that would be a much more expedient course than entering upon a debate now without consideration, when things might be said and probably would be said that might have the effect of injuring the prospect which we all have in view. I think the Government will probably take that view themselves. On the other hand, I am sure that they would desire that the House of Commons, in the consideration which the matter ought to have, should have an opportunity of discussing it in all its aspects. Therefore, the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will accede to that request, if it be preferred to him?

Before the Prime Minister replies, I should also like to ask him whether, having regard to the fact that an All Ireland Conference of railway men is convened for Tuesday week in Dublin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I do not know whether the House understands that it is essential to peace that the railway situation should be cleared up—I merely ask, having regard to the fact that that conference is convened for Tuesday week in Dublin, whether the proclamation of martial law will not interfere with facilities being given for delegates to attend that conference in Dublin?

Does Father O'Flanagan speak on behalf of the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church?

Might I ask a question arising out of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? As I understand it, he said that it was proposed to assemble, I think he used the words "a meeting of delegates duly elected by the people of Ireland from all parts of the country"?

indicated dissent.

I wanted to ask whether that is any new body of people or whether it is simply the Sinn Fein members of this Parliament?

rose —

I think I had better answer the questions which have been already put to me. If there are any other questions I shall certainly answer them later on. If I might respectfully say so, my right hon. Friend has taken the right course. Having regard to the situation in Ireland, however, and to the fact that I have made the statement to-day, it is essential that action should be taken immediately. If it had not been for the fact that the House might have felt that it was not respectful to it not to make the statement here first of all, we should have taken action and then have given intimation to the House of Commons. We felt, however, that it was right to make a statement here first, but action must be taken immediately for very obvious reasons which will appear to everybody. If the House feels that they desire a discussion upon the subject, well, of course, the Government will grant facilities, because we realise that it is a very grave step; but I would ask my right hon. Friend, and the observation applies also to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, to consider carefully whether a discussion of that kind would in their judgment be helpful. I put this quite respectfully: whether they would consider that point before they finally make up their minds to ask for a discussion. I am not doubtful as to what they might say, but others would also speak. With regard to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), there will be no interference with the meeting of the Labour Conference on Tuesday week. With regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend (Colonel Mildmay), I am afraid that Father O'Flanagan can hardly be said to speak for the Roman Catholic Church—I think he has lately had a little quarrel with his own Bishop. Still, he is a very popular and powerful priest in Ireland.

With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill), I did not suggest that there should be any delegates appointed ad hoc. I simply said that the Government would give facilities for the meeting together of persons duly elected to represent constituencies in Ireland.

The question that I am going to ask is, I hope, in the interests of peace. I will not put into it one word that will in any way jeopardise peace. If we are in search of peace, and are prepared to give up ideas of vengeance—well, no doubt, with certain limited exceptions, certain bad exceptions—are we prepared, as one of the gifts of peace, to offer an amnesty?

May I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the re quest made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for an opportunity for discussion, does he realise there are certain points in the statement which he has just made which are capable, at any rate, of more than one interpretation. There are questions that arise out of it which it would be very desirable, from a good many points of view, to have elucidated, as soon as possible, in view of the consequences that might follow from the action the Government has taken. One thing I have in my mind, which a good many Members would like to know, is what effect the meeting of this body in Dublin may have on the policy of the Government with regard to the Bill now going through Parliament. There are questions of that sort which it is very desirable should be under stood. Obviously, misunderstanding might arise, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider seriously the request of the right hon. Gentle man opposite from that point of view.

I quite understand the importance of the suggestion that has been made by the Prime Minister as to the care that ought to be taken when a question of this kind is under consideration. I am going to suggest to him that the matter might be left over until Monday, until we have had time to reflect over it, and then I, or someone on my behalf, can put it to the Prime Minister whether we consider it desirable the matter should be discussed.

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask, if he does yield to this demand for a discussion, which in the opinion of many of us is not likely to lead to peace, will he undertake not to let it delay the carrying out of the policy which he has announced?

1.0 P.M.

I think I made it clear that we could not possibly allow any delay. That would be mischievous. With regard to the question lout by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that would be a matter for discussion when peace is made. It is not a question to be considered at this stage. When peace is made, amnesty and similar questions always come up for discussion. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. K. McNeill), who I know is very anxious for peace, he will see when he reads the document which I read to the House that I made it clear that we do not depart from the conditions I laid down in the House of Commons with regard to an Irish settlement. After all, the first thing is the consideration, not of the terms of settlement, but of the arrangements that will promote peace and a cessation of violence in Ireland. We cannot get the necessary atmosphere to discuss it unless there is a cessation of this violence. That is the first step. I have already made it clear that if any section of the House is anxious to have a discussion on this subject, although I am in agreement with my hon. Friend behind me (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) and fear it would not be helpful, yet if, on their responsibility, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think otherwise, the Government of course cannot refuse an opportunity for discussion.

We should not think of putting down a formal Motion under the circumstances, and the best way I can suggest would be a Motion for the Adjournment.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider, in order to avoid misunderstanding, publishing the names of those who will be per- mitted to attend this meeting. I am sure, if the House reflects a moment, nothing could be more dangerous, as the Prime Minister said, than misunderstanding; and if they have the names now, surely misunderstanding would be avoided by their being published!

I can assure my right hon. Friend that is one of the questions that is causing us great anxiety. We came to the conclusion that on the whole it was better not at this stage to publish the names. A good deal depends on the spirit in which the offer we have made is received by the other side.

In reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I understood him to say that when his statement is read it will be found he declared there was to be no change with regard to the essential principles of settlement. I listened very attentively to the statement, and I understood him to say the only thing he laid down as a sine quâ non was the maintenance of the Union, or words to that effect. Listening to him, there appeared to be a good deal of ambiguity, and perhaps that can be cleared up.

I referred in the reply to Father O'Flannagan to the statement I made to the House on 16th August, when I laid down a series of conditions which I am still convinced are essential.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, seeing that this matter is of such vital importance to the country, the holding of a secret Session of this House to-morrow, in order that things may be said which, although they might be injurious if they were given to the world, might be useful in coming to a decision?

There is one point which has not been made clear, and it is this: The Leader of the House, the day before yesterday, stated it was the intention of the Government to go on with the Government of Ireland Bill. Is that still their intention?

Certainly.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "in accordance with pro- visions to be made for the purpose by Order in Council."

I put down this Amendment in order to enter a protest against the growing custom of legislation by Orders in Council, which takes away powers from this House, and, in this particular Bill, really leaves all these important matters of road transport in the hands of the Minister of Transport.

I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend does not intend to press this Amendment, and my remarks on it, therefore, need only be brief; but I think that if hon. Members will look at the provisions which are to be made by Order in Council, they will find that they are really matters which are quite suitable for that form of treatment, and are not, in fact, legislation. In order to meet the views which were expressed on the Second Reading, we have issued as a Command Paper a preliminary draft of the Order in Council which we propose to make under this particular Section. It is not, perhaps, in the final form in which it will be submitted to His Majesty in Council, but I think that a perusal of it will relieve my hon. and gallant Friend and other Members of any suspicion that there is any attempt here to usurp the proper and legitimate functions of Parliament.

I will get a copy from the Vote Office. I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move in Subsection (5), after the word "Minister" ["enabling the Minister to give"], to insert the words "after consultation with the county councils."

This is an Amendment which constantly comes up when Bills affecting the county councils are concerned. I think it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment and one that anyone can understand a council whose administration is affected specially by Orders in Council would desire to have put into the Bill. We very gladly recognise that hitherto the Minister and all those associated with him have kept in the closest touch with the county councils, but unfortunately we cannot be sure that the present Minister and those with whom he is acting will be always there, and therefore, as this is a matter of Orders in Council, and that when matters are dealt with in this House the county councils cannot express their view, we ask that the same good relations which have been established and hitherto maintained between the new Ministry of Transport and the county councils should be preserved and that before making these Orders in Council they should consult the county councils.

I am very sorry I cannot accede to the very kindly expressed request of my hon. Friend, but we have anticipated him in this matter, and in drafting the Order in Council we have availed ourselves of consultation with the County Councils Association, but my hon. Friend has recognised that that has been the policy of the Ministry throughout when dealing with county councils. It is not expected that these Orders in Council will have to be made more than once though they may be renewed from time to time.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move in Subsection (5) to leave out the words "and otherwise" ["uniformity of administration and otherwise"] and to insert instead thereof the words "in the collection of such duties."

The expression "and otherwise" is so wide that we hope to get some explanation from the Minister as to what it means. We do not quite know what is included in it.

There are a number of matters which are not strictly necessary for securing uniformity of administration, but which are necessary for carrying the provisions of the Act into force. When my hon. Friend has an opportunity of looking at the draft orders he will see exactly what they are and I think he will agree that they are perfectly innocuous.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5), to insert new Sub-sections— (6) Before any Order in Council under this section is made notice of the proposals to make the Order, and of the places where copies of the draft of the Order can be obtained, shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazette, as the case may require, and in such other manner as may be necessary to ensure publicity. (7) Any Order in Council shall be forthwith laid before Parliament and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is so laid praying that any such Order may be annulled His Majesty may annul such Order, and it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under. While I agree that Orders in Council may perhaps reasonably be made in regard to administrative points such as these, I still think the House ought to reserve to itself the right we have had in previous Bills latterly of insisting on these Orders being laid on the table of the House. The words of the Amendment are taken directly from provisions inserted by the House in the Ministry of Transport Bill of last year in regard to Orders in Council which that Act gave the Minister power to make. It is only right that if we should give the Minister power to make certain Orders in Council, he should at least lay them on the table of the House, and publish them in the London, Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes in order that everyone may know what they are, because they are to have the force of Statutes made by the House, and I can see no possible objection to incorporating in this Bill the same sort of words that the House of Commons put in the Transport Act last year.

I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the point. As a general principle I am not disposed to quarrel in the least with the desirability of submitting draft Orders in Council to the consideration of Parliament, but in the present case we have endeavoured to meet it in the way which I intimated on the first Amendment. The Finance Act becomes operative as from 1st January next. The Orders in Council which are to be made under this Clause are nothing new. They follow on the lines of Orders in Council which were made with reference to the petrol duty, and it is quite obvious that it will be impossible to take any proceeding such as laying them on the table of the House, and waiting for the assent of Parliament and get them operative by 1st January. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the nature of these Orders, and that we are following strictly the precedents with reference to the matter, I shall be grateful if the hon. baronet does not think it necessary to press this.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to meeting us. I did not press my Amendment be cause I hoped the Government would be able to accept this, which is a most necessary matter. If in this instance it is necessary that the Order in Council should be passed so as to become operative by 1st January, and therefore we should not have full time to lay it before the House in the ordinary way, would he consider the introduction of an Amendment by which any future Orders in Council would be laid. I appreciate very much the courtesy with which the Minister of Transport met us in supplying us with copies of draft Orders in Council which we asked for on the Second Reading, which goes a long way towards meeting my difficulty, but I think we ought to be covered in future Orders in Council.

I will give most favourable consideration to that suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I take it the Clause applies to Ireland.

Yes.

These licences are to be collected by county councils, and it may be that there will be difficulties in getting these duties collected by county councils in Ireland. I do not want to raise political questions but it is at least possible that some county councils in Ireland may refuse to collect the duties on behalf of the Imperial Government. I understand payments are going to be made out of the General Road Fund for the benefit of the roads in Ireland. I think it would be only right that the payments out of the Road Fund to Ireland should be limited to the amount of taxation received from Ireland. I do not think the same would apply to Scotland because a great deal of the, traffic on the Scotch roads is English people travelling in order to have the benefit of the salubrious atmosphere of the Highlands Therefore it is perhaps fair that Scotland should have the excess out of the Road Fund of the amount which Scotland contributes. Rut I think there should be some understanding in regard to the amount proposed to be given from the General Road Fund for Irish roads, particularly in view of the possibility of some Irish Councils not collecting their necessary quota. I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to give it very careful consideration., and to see whether he can either make some statement now, or give us some undertaking that the matter shall be considered before any grants are made out of the Road Fund.

I quite agree with what the hon. Baronet said generally, but I really must protest against his suggestion as to the financial position. I do not want to introduce politics, but if say the Kerry County Council decline to act then would it be fair that the money should be withdrawn for the Antrim County Council? I suggest in this matter the right hon. Gentleman should not deal with Ireland as a whole but in parts.

The point raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) is one which is before us and I will ask the House to provide for alternative machinery in the case of Irish local authorities which decline to act. On the other point this has only significance until the Home Rule Bill comes into effect. I would press the hon. Baronet not to endeavour to obtain statutory limitations to the amount contributed to Ireland. It cannot last very long, and in the past it has been limited quite satisfactorily on the lines suggested. It would cause very great difficulty now in the present disturbed condition if we were to lay down a position dealing differently with roads which are continuous from one county to another. We will deal with the other point.

The right hon. Gentleman has opened up rather an important issue. He says that the Home Rule Bill is going to bring this question to an end and I think the House is entitled to know how. Under the Home Rule Bill will the licence duties of mechanically propelled vehicles be considered a part of the general volume of taxation which goes into the British net? If so how are you going to distinguish between what is justly paid to Ireland and what ought to be kept in this country?

All these services will be transferred to Ireland.

And it will get the benefit of the whole of the money raised?

Of its own money.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "the sum of five hundred and thirty-six thousand nine hundred and fifty-four pounds, eight shillings, and the sum of sixty-four thousand and one pounds seventeen shillings respectively" and to insert instead thereof the words those sums equal to the amounts collected by the county councils of the Counties of England and Wales for the year ended thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one. No doubt this proposal would involve an increased payment to the county councils, but I submit that is only just and fair seeing the great increase in the cost of the roads and the increased taxation in enormously larger licence duties in respect of motor traffic. The sum I would propose to insert would amount to about a million pounds. On 25th March of this year an hon. Member asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer: What sum of money is guaranteed to local authorities in lieu of the carriage licence duties under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1909…10, and the proceeds of such duties in the year ending 31st March, 1909, and in the last financial year respectively? The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was: The net amount due to local authorities in Great Britain in lieu of carriage licences is £600,856. That is a larger sum than is stated in this Bill.

The reply continued: The actual net proceeds of the duties in the year 1908…9 were £949,937 6s. 8d. I submit that the county councils are entitled at least to the sum they received in the year 1918…19.

I hope that the Government will not yield to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member. There is a great volume of opinion that this £600,000 ought not to be diverted from road purposes to general county objects. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been permitted to add to the £536,000 mentioned the sum which is given to Scotland, which, I believe, makes up the £600,000, which is the amount payable to the local authorities under the arrangement come to in 1909. That arrangement was made at a time when a higher licence duty was put on motor vehicles, and it was then considered reasonable that the old Licence Duty, which up to that time was collected chiefly on carriages, should go to the purposes for which it had been allocated under previous legislation. Since that time conditions have changed very much. I hope that the Minister of Transport will give us some indication that this £600,000 diverted from road purposes will eventually, and I hope soon, be put back to the legitimate use of improving roads. The Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Henry May-bury, which went exhaustively into the whole matter, report that this sum of £600,000 paid to the local authorities, not for roads, but for general purposes, should not be taken from the roads if it can be provided from any other source. If it is not possible to do this at present I recommend that the matter should be adjusted without prejudice to the local authorities on the next occasion when the arrangements are revised. We cannot on this occasion expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us any Amendment, but we do ask for a declaration of policy, because the total amount provided by these duties is not transferred to the roads, and it is most necessary that the money should be brought back into the fund from which it was taken.

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. I can adopt without alteration nearly the whole of what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). This one subject of the Bill is money raised from a particular class of persons for a particular purpose for the maintenance and improvement of the highway. Very great difficulty has arisen as to whether any portion of that money ought to be diverted from that purpose to such purposes as those now under discussion. The Departmental Committee came to the conclusion that, although it was not perhaps strictly just, yet for the present was impracticable to avoid it. Therefore the sum was taken at £600,000, but if the two sums named in the Clause are added together that might continue to be paid out of the special fund for the present until Parliament came to some other conclusion, What the hon. and learned Member is seeking to do is to open one of the most difficult problems, namely, the difference between national and local finance. He is going back upon the whole problem of assessment revenue and stabilisation of sums in the year 1909. Of course, the bargains have not turned out well in many instances for the local authorities, but the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that this is not a convenient opportunity to deal with what, after all, is a very small part of a very large question.

I desire to support the views put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). We are most anxious that this tax should all go to roads. We are glad to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment, which I hope will not be allowed to be withdrawn, but will be negatived. The Committee does not wish that these taxes intended for a certain purpose should be frittered away. I am pleased to find that the Ministry of Transport are in sympathy with the recommendations that have been made on the subject. At present the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way, but I hope that we may ask the Minister of Transport to press this view on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget so that this tax may be paid in full for the purpose for which it was intended.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["Fund shall be"], to insert the words "subject to the advice of the Roads Advisory Committee."

"Under Clause 3 a large sum, over £8,000,000, is to be at the disposal of the Minister, under his absolute control, and management without any controlling authority whatever. Looking at the Chinese Paper which my right hon. Friend published a few days ago with regard to the sums given him under the provisions of the Roads Development Improvements Act, 1909, as amended by this Bill we will see what very large powers he has. He may make an advance to any highway authority for the construction of new roads and the maintenance or improvement of existing roads, or any company or person—I take it any company or person concerned with roads improvement maintenance and new construction—may come to the Minister and get very large grants out of the fund which is entirely at the disposal of the Minister without any control whatever. They may construct new roads, maintain existing roads, repair them, contribute to the cost of any such work, and for purposes like the improvement of roads, including widening a road, cutting off corners, levelling, and the provision of bridges, viaducts, footways, and subways. Those are very large powers. The Minister is also able compulsorily to acquire land if it is needed for road-making. The powers are given without control by county councils or anyone else.

When the Act establishing the Ministry was going through the House some of us made some rude remarks about the Minister, in expressing our fear that he would not be inclined to consider the roads as against the railways. Those time are past, and we are all concerned now to help my right hon. Friend to do his utmost for the improvement of the roads of the country. The House appointed by Statute a Roads Advisory Committee. We took three days in Committee upstairs hammering out the Clause which established that Committee. The Committee consists of a chairman nominated by the Minister, five representatives of the great local authorities, namely county councils and road authorities, and five representatives of the road users of the country. There could not be a better committee to advise my right hon. Friend on any road question. County councils on the one side can advise as to road improvements that are necessary and as to the need of new roads. On the other hand are the road users, among whom is included a representative of the Royal Agricultural Society in order that horse traffic might be adequately represented. Parliament set up that Committee for a purpose. It was not intended purely for amusement. But the Committee has met only twice since Parliament set it up, and it is not performing the function which Parliament expected it to perform.

Why has it not met?

It is summoned by officials of the Ministry when they desire to have a meeting. We had a meeting the week before last and a great deal of work was done. That Committee might be made of real importance to the Ministry. Suppose my right hon. Friend wants to make a new road, say, in Cornwall or Yorkshire. The moment that fact is made known there will be questions in this House and representatives of other districts will ask, "Why cannot we have a" new road as well as the districts chosen?" The Minister will be able lo reply, "This road has been sanctioned by the Roads Advisory Committee which is a statutory and independent body. They have thoroughly considered the whole question of roads from one end of England to another and they are of opinion that the road is a vital necessity." I suggest this Amendment, not because I think the Committee should paramount over the Minister. I use the word "paramount" advisedly. Time was when I tried to control the Minister, but I found it far too difficult. The utmost I could dc was to seek to give him advice. The Advisory Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, is neglected by the Ministry. I do not think it is deliberately neglected. It is a small question concerning his officials. If the Amendment is accepted it will imply only that the Minister shall be subject to the advice of the Committee. If my right hon. Friend does not like the word "subject" let him choose some other word. He can ask for the Committee s advice, but he need not take it.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the Mover of this Amendment. When the original scheme was conceived in 1909 for devoting certain hypothecated revenues to the improvement of the roads, the sum involved was comparatively small. In the first year it was £700,000 and it grew to something like £2,000,000 At that time the arrangement sanctioned by Parliament was that a Roads Board should have control of the disposal of that money. Then the Roads Board was brought to an end and the Ministry of Transport was established, and it took over the function of the Roads Board. Under the present proposal the income of the Department now charged with the roads is a large sum. It ought not to be spent without adequate opportunity for this House to see that it is properly spent I agree that we must look at the matter from a different point of view to-day because it is a much larger sum. The reason why this fund does not come on the estimates in the ordinary way is that it is hypothecated revenue, and we carry it forward and invest it and do not surrender our balances. What opportunity has this House of considering the way in which this money is spent? It can raise the subject on the salary of the Minister or on the Estimates for the Roads Department. That gives it the opportunity, if it has the material before it, of criticising any forecast as to the disposal of the money. We are under a statutory obligation to present to Parliament an annual report and annual accounts. Those accounts deal, of course, with the money that has been spent. It is laid down in the Ministry of Transport Act that they must be prepared up to a certain date and be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think it is reasonable that an opportunity should be given to this House to know what we are about to do, on the lines of an Estimate, with the money that is coming in in future. I accept that principle and will try to give effect to it. Let us consider the proposal put forward in the Amendment. My hon. Friend says he was largely instrumental in obtaining the appointment of the Advisory Committee.

I did not say that.

I think my hon. Friend was largely instrumental in obtaining the Committee, and I would like to give him credit for it, because I think it is a useful part of the organisation. Let us see how the Committee works. At the time it was set up it was said, "You must not limit the Committee; you must make it free. It must be entitled to consider anything it likes." My hon Friend looked at me and I noted in his voice a reproach that the Committee has not been more used. The hon. Member made a mistake when he said that I appoint the chairman. It is provided that the chairman shall be elected by the Members of the Advisory Committee from among themselves. I appoint the secretary. The Committee is representative of the road users and the road-owning authorities, and the members come from all parts of the country, including Ireland and Scotland. It is provided that the Committee may make regulations as to their procedure and method of voting, and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement or maintenance of the roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon. When the Committee was appointed, I remember that I said that we would give it the fullest possible scope. The Minister has no power to go to them for advice, although I do not say that they would decline to exercise their discretion to give advice. The Committee is absolutely free. I have no power to summon them. I have no specific power to refer anything to the Committee. It is not the business of the Minister or any official of the Ministry to summon the meetings of the Committee, to regulate its conduct or to prepare its agenda. We provide a secretary and the Committee does the rest. It has only met twice. Possibly the reason for that is that one of the most active members (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) was away in India for a long time. I have no doubt he would have—

Stirred them up.

I have no doubt he would have been very active. That mere fact shows to my mind the impossibility of using the Advisory Committee for the day to day work of sanctioning expenditure, etc. Imagine the position, with a Committee drawn from all parts of the country, if we had to have them sitting from day to day while we were dealing with the recent question of arterial roads and the contributions to be made to them. Advisory Committees are very useful, but I think they are more useful when they have matters referred to them for advice rather than when they are left to regulate their own activities, because in the first case the working of the departmental machine provides materials for them to consider. However, this Advisory Committee was appointed in this way and constituted in this way and given its present powers. It has only met twice, but I have no doubt it will meet more frequently. Its very constitution and the way its membership is scattered do not make it a useful machine for day to day work. I would ask hon. Members to go back with me to what preceded the Advisory Committee. It was the Roads Board.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to this provision in the first Clause with respect to the setting up of the Advisory Committee.

For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Minister with respect to and for safeguarding any interests affected by the exercise of the powers and the performance of his duties under the Act. I submit that that provision does imply that the Minister has the distinct power of going to this Committee for advice and assistance with respect to, and the safeguarding of, any interests affected by the exercising of any powers which he possesses. That was why the Committee was appointed by Parliament. I rather demurred when he said he had no powers. That provision gives him ample power to consult the Committee. It was the object of the Committee to safeguard the interests of anything affected by what he does. If the Committee is not told what he is going to do, how can it safeguard the interests committed to it by Parliament?

2.0 P.M.

The hon. Baronet has read out the first Clause, but the procedure of the Committee is regulated by Clause 4, which I read. The Committee may make their own Regulations and advise upon any matter at their discretion. I do not wish it to be understood that I desire to remain aloof from the Committee. Advisory Committees fulfil a very useful function, but I do not think, for the reasons I have given, that an Advisory Committee constituted like this is the most useful body for regular day to day work. The Roads Board existed from 1910 to 1919. It was a smaller body, and it had direct responsibility. It was one of those parts of the constitutional machine set up in exceptional circum stances with financial responsibility, but with no Department responsible for their actual work. The Roads Board between 1910–19 consisted of five honorary members, with a paid chairman, and it held 41 meetings, or 4.5 meetings a year. Here is a typical agenda. They went through the financial statement of receipts, expenditure and investment. They considered the grants made since the last meeting, and they considered a report of applications which had been received and any other business. Being a small body they were more easily got together. Most of them either lived or had residences in London and came up here for their work. Therefore, we had two kinds of committees: one drawn from all parts of the country composed of busy men who could not be in constant attendance. These decisions are taken from day to day, and grants are made. Undertakings are given from day to day, and promises are made. If the Minister is to be responsible to Parliament, even with all the modifications which my hon. Friend introduced at a later stage of his speech as to the class of advisory work he suggested, I do not think that Parliament or this Committee would wish that an advisory committee of that kind should have the power to sanction certain moneys being devoted from time to time to different objects. That is daily work done from day to day.

I ask hon. Members to consider what is the real Parliamentary control over this fund. We have an Annual Report of what is being done, which shows the way the fund is going. There are considerable investments in this fund. An annual account is submitted. The whole of the expenditure of the Roads Department comes before Parliament. That we shall come to later. There is ample opportunity for discussing road finance in prospect. Parliament ought to know, and those who are interested ought to know, the road finance in prospect, and there is nothing to prevent the Advisory Committee going into these matters if it wishes. I would welcome it. They have absolute power to do so.

I will see whether I cannot so adjust the issue of the annual Report as to make it come in at a useful time, so that Parliament can have before it, as nearly as possible in the form of an Estimate, a statement upon which they can criticise the future expenditure of the Road Board and its future income from year to year. Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing that. The Roads Advisory Committee can within their discretion advise the Minister upon it, and that Report will be available, and when the Estimates come up for the Director-General of Roads and his engineering staff, and on the Minister's salary, Parliament will have an opportunity of raising any question. I suggest that that is the more convenient way of dealing with it, and I ask the Committee to consider whether the proposals which I have made, which I make in all sincerity, because I believe that Parliament ought to have control in this matter, are not sufficient to meet the needs of the case.

I hope the Committee will not now be put to the trouble of a Division after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) appears to hare in his mind chiefly the idea that this Advisory Committee, to whose setting up I was also a party a year and a half ago, has not functioned, except to the extent of two meetings, because of some unwillingness on the part of the Minister of Transport to summon it. My hon. Friend read a portion of Clause 22, but I am not sure that he read the whole of it. At all events, it seems to me that Subsection (4) makes it perfectly clear that the onus and responsibility of this Committee functioning rests upon the Committee itself and not upon the Minister, as was suggested by my hon. Friend. The Sub-section to which I have referred reads as follows: The Roads Committee may mike regulations as to their procedure and method of voting, and may at their discretion consider and report to the Minister upon any matters affecting the construction, improvement, or maintenance of roads or bridges or the regulation of traffic thereon. The whole power and responsibility rests upon the Committee, and if they have not met and dealt with this matter, then upon them be the blame; not upon my hon. Friend, because we know he has been performing great public duties in India for six months; but now that he is back again in the ordinary course of his duty as a member of that Committee, I am sure the Committee will meet regularly. The question before us now is as to whether we shall accept an Amendment which would compel the Minister to refer these questions to the Advisory Committee. I venture to say that my right hon. Friend has demonstrated quite clearly that sufficient control already exists over this matter, and so long as you get parliamentary control in a sufficient measure, then surely it is not necessary to interfere with the constitution and duties of this Advisory Committee, which, as my hon. Friend said in the course of his speech, was set up under a Section which he himself had most to do, with others of us, in framing. He is as responsible as anyone for the framing of that Section, and he therefore must take the responsibility of allowing it to continue without interference if it can be shown, as I think I have shown, that the responsibility rests on the Committee itself. As to the merits of the Section, there are some county councils and rural district councils which have antagonistic interests. I have myself when coming to this House from my home in the country to go round corners, not merely at right angles, but at angles of 25 degrees, and my life is endangered almost every morning as I come towards this House from my home in the country. Why is that? Why are these roads left in that condition? It is because the authorities cannot agree, and, therefore, we must have some Ministry which can deal with these matters, and override, if necessary, any diversity of interests between the local authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will not consider that the Amendment need be pressed after the very clear exposition which the Minister has given, that he will find himself able to reestablish the activity of the Advisory Committee, and that its present powers will be quite sufficient to do everything which is practical and necessary for the protection of the road users and those who are otherwise concerned

The question rather turns on the duties of the Roads Advisory Committee and whether they can meet without being called together by the Minister of Transport. I think the Hon. Member who spoke last has shown that they can meet as often as they like, and that is clear from the Act; but what is not clear is this, that unless they have business put in front of them by the Minister, there is nothing for them to meet about. They do not know how the money is to be divided, and they cannot initiate new schemes themselves.

But they may advise; they are empowered to advise.

Yes, but they have not got a staff to start new schemes and proposals, and unless proposals are put before them by the Minister, it is practically useless to hold a meeting. I think this is the most important and governing line in the whole Bill and that it is essential that this money should be expended in such a way as to give general satisfaction to those who subscribe it. It is necessary, too, that the local authorities who have control of the roads on which this money is to be spent should also be satisfied that they are getting a fair proportion of the money collected in their area and that it should not all be given to certain favoured districts while other large parts of the country are neglected.

That is why many of us feel that it is desirable that some form of Advisory Committee should be called together by the Minister of Transport to advise him as to the allocation of these funds. I know, of course, that the funds are mainly going to be allotted to first and second class roads, but the Minister in allocating the money should receive help. It would be a great help to us here to-day if the Minister could give us some idea upon what lines he is going to allocate first and second class roads. Some of us who live in far distant parts of the country are very anxious about this matter. Will the first-class roads only be in thickly populated districts, and wild districts in the far west of Wales or the far north of Scotland be ignored? —because when they took the traffic returns on these roads they had only one-twentieth of the traffic that went over the roads in more thickly populated areas. On what basis is he going to make a first-class and a second-class road? If this Amendment were accepted, these questions would not arise, and we should not have to ask them: but we are giving the Minister powers over, roughly, £10,000,000 a year for all time. I have not seen the paper he has published, but I have made inquiries, and I find no basis on which he is going to distribute this large sum.

The Minister told us in the House the other day, in reply to the Noble Lord sitting below the Gangway, that he was not going to have this Report until the end of February. Of course, if he has got anything further to tell us we shall all be de lighted to hear it. There should be a fair division for all the roads, so that not only the taxpaying community may be satisfied, but also the great local authorities, which are the highway authorities of the country.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible for the Minister of Transport to be hampered with every little item. I think he talked about cutting off corners and making small improvements of a hundred pounds here and there. Nothing like that was in my mind in putting down this Amendment. But if he could get advice on the big main schemes before they were carried out, that is a different matter. As the thing stands now, he can do anything he likes. It is true the Minister of Transport tells us that he is going to submit to Parliament full details of expenditure, but then the whole money will have been spent.

I promised to give a forecast.

As to the localities in which the money is to be spent?

No.

That is the problem. It would be as if the Secretary of State for War took £100,000,000 for war, and did not tell us whether it was for Mesopotamia, Palestine, or anywhere else. This House, it is true, will go through the Estimates and pass the expenditure, but it will only be on the certificate of the Administration, and there will be no details. The right hon. Gentleman must have the decision, but if he could give us some assurance that when he was having a big scheme before him he would give us an undertaking that it was his intention to refer the matter to the Roads Advisory Committee, I should be content. Personally, I have experienced the very greatest help in road matters from the Minister of Transport, and I do not suppose that while he is at the Ministry, with all the excellent officials at the Roads Department, there will be any trouble whatsoever. In fact, I am sure if other local bodies have received the assistance in the same way as the county council on which I have the honour to be, they will have nothing to say against the Minister of Transport and the Roads Department. It is, therefore, quite clear that my criticisms are not against the Ministry of Transport as at present run, but only aimed at securing safeguards over a great public expenditure. I do think we are entitled to a little more information as to the way in which the Minister of Transport means to carry on this very impor- tant matter of the division of public funds in different parts of the country.

If I may say so, I share the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend. The expenditure of this sum is really hedged about by many conditions. In the first place, the money is to be raised after a very careful inquiry. There was no dispute as to the amount to be raised, or the way it was to be spent. There was a certain difference of opinion as to the spreading of taxation, but the amount was not in dispute. The sums were to be spent in this way: Fifty per cent, for first-class roads for maintenance —that is not simply tarring and macadamising the surface, but it means widening and strengthening bad corners; and 25 per cent, for second-class roads. Then, in this year, there is £500,000 for arterial roads. That is in accordance with the programme that was laid down, at any rate for London. The other items throughout the country must come out of that sum. Next year there is a million for arterial roads, and the remainder goes to maintenance, but not purely maintenance. In a normal year, out of the expenditure of £8,000,000, there is £1,250,000 for arterial roads. That is spread over England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland in the report of the Committee. It was the basis upon which the Finance Act was passed, and I consider we are committed to that on that basis.

How is the classification to be carried out? The bulk of the money is to go on road maintenance, including improvements I have described in road-making— 50 per cent, first class, 25 per cent, second class and nothing to the rest. The local authorities have been asked to send in their proposed classification. They have classified the roads. Of course, in most of the cases the surveyor will have discussed things, and we shall not find a first-class road in one area and a second-class road in the next area. They will be linked up so as to get the first-class road gauged right through, and the second-class roads gauged right through. The money involved will about permit of contributions on this basis: 12 per cent, on the whole first-class roads, 14 per cent, on the whole second-class roads, making 26 per cent, altogether; and 74 per cent, on the "also-ran" type of roads. There is not very much difference between the treatment. Scotland has more first-class roads than we have. The big roads run up the valleys, and you do not get the large number of little cross-roads.

That is the classification which is really the basis of the grants. As a matter of fact schemes have been submitted to the Roads Advisory Committee, and were at the first meeting approved by that Committee. There is no intention of keeping the Advisory Committee out of it altogether. We are not working in that sense at all. As the matter progresses we shall get our annual reports, and the apprehensions which I might have shared had I not known how the thing was working of hon. Members will be found to have had little ground. Parliament has sanctioned this fund as a specific fund. It is for the improvement of the roads of this country. But you cannot say you will give £5,000,000 this year and £1,000,000 next year. That is a wasteful, extravagant, and perfectly useless method. Such a way will cost far more than a better scheme on a progressive basis. You have to look forward to the development by the local authorities of the various schemes, of the provision of their stone-crushing and other plant, and in all these ways there is to be co-operation between them and the Ministry.

Therefore there will be, it is hoped, this continual and gradual progress steadily going forward, and bringing the roads up to a higher level, with the possibility in Parliament of criticising what is being done. It would not be good to go suddenly into a great capital expenditure. Our annual report will show what we have done on the basis of classification, and so on. I look upon myself as a trustee for the fund, and I have always endeavoured to act in that way. I shall look at these things very carefully. I have offered to give the House a forecast and estimate at the time we submit the estimates for the road staff of the yield of taxation, the prospective expenditure, how much is going to each country, and as to what roads are put into the first class, the second class, and so on. I agree the House ought to have this. Those who find the money are entitled to special consideration, and we propose to give it. Here is a Department working with the local authorities, but which cannot spend money wholeheartedly on any scheme of its own. The local authorities have to pay their proportion towards the roads. There is another safeguard. In practice our work will be in partnership with the local authorities. It has been suggested that before the Minister makes a grant he shall take the advice of the Committee or act in accordance with their advice—

I distinctly said that though the right hon. Gentleman might listen to that advice he need not take it.

There are nine or ten grants per day. If you are going to make the Advisory Committee responsible in this matter, it must be remembered that the Members are not easily got together? it is different from the days when the Road Board was small. Such procedure as proposed would be hampering the efficiency of the Department. As I say, I have offered to give the House a forecast, an estimate of what is going to be done, with Reports of what has been done, and I hope that will satisfy hon. Members.

As I understand, the Minister thinks the Advisory Committee has a certain volition of its own. It can meet as often as it likes, and take under review such subjects that may be brought before it. Would it not be to the interest of his Department to ensure a definite amount of control being placed in the hands of the Committee, as suggested by the Mover of the Amendment? Would the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, allow the Committee to meet as often as they felt disposed, to take into consideration such matters as they desire to be brought before them, and thus enable the Committee of its own volition to take sufficient interest in these matters, and so render him every possible assistance in their power?

Advisory Committees—at least I so felt as I listened to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—are Committees set up to advise somebody. I expect that this Advisory Committee is to be set up to advise in connection with matters of road transport. To suggest that the Minister shall require advice upon all little details is absurd, but on any question of allocation, and in respect to these very large schemes to be undertaken in various parts of the country, I do not see why advice should not be asked. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us to-day that before he sanctions any schemes he will come to Parliament. But what is likely to be done after the thing has been decided by his Department? I must confess, having some knowledge of departmental work, that I have no faith whatever in the Departments. This may be an exception. On the question of allocation I think it will be very wise for the Minister to call together the Advisory Committee. In Scotland, for instance, in this matter of road transport, the amount of traffic on the roads coming under the authority during summer time, especially from May to September, forms a very large amount of the traffic. Money beyond the ordinary should be given to these roads, because the traffic is so enormous, and it costs a good deal more to keep these roads up. I have heard it repeatedly stated by local authorities that they have a grievance even against the Road Board in not giving them a sufficient sum of money to make these matters right. I hope, if the Minister of Transport cannot accept this Amendment, at least he will give the House some assurance that in the large schemes undertaken the matter will be submitted, first of all, to the Advisory Committee for their advice, and that they shall be asked to allocate sums allocated equivalent to the upkeep of the roads in the manner I have described.

I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a division, but I think that this discussion has been of great use, and I desire to acknowledge the way in which the Minister of Transport has met my wishes. Of course, I do not want all the details given before the Committee, although I do not think we have been made as good use of as we might have been. I realise now, after what has been said, that we have power to call ourselves together when ever we like, and take any matter into consideration. That statement has rather opened my eyes, and my right hon. Friend may find us in the future inclined to sit more frequently, and we may pass more Resolutions. I did not refer to what we have done, because I thought that until a decision had been arrived at our recommendations should be treated as confidential. My right hon. Friend has power to borrow for these purposes, but I hope that before he goes in for a large loan he will let the Advisory Committee know that he has such an idea in order that we may discuss it and give our humble advice before he gets rid of this £8,000,000 a year.

We know that the Government is bound to take up very great works for the unemployed, which I agree must be undertaken, and this will throw a very heavy and a very proper burden on the State. What I want to do is to make sure that these particular funds will not be taken for that purpose, because all such charges should come out of the general funds of the country. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance on that point because we are leaving the disposal of this £8,000.000 a year entirely in his hands. I think we are entitled at least to express our view that the whole of that money should be used for the roads and not for any general national purpose.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move in Subsection (3, a ) to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and to insert instead thereof the words "an amount equal to any reasonable."

There are four Amendments standing in the name of the Minister of Transport which are intended to deal with the subject-matter of certain other Amendments on the Paper, and the first of them is the one which I have just moved. During the discussions on this Bill some doubt arose as to whether the county councils would be refunded the actual cost of their administrations in connection with carrying out their duties under this Act, and objection was taken to the words "as may be prescribed by Regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury." The hon. Member for the Thirsk Division (Mr. Turton) called attention to a statement of the Minister of Transport in connection with the Finance Act in which he gave a positive assurance that the whole cost incurred by the county councils in the performance of their duties under this Act would be refunded to them. In reply I pointed out that although the pledge would be redeemed fully, yet it was obvious that it must be deemed to be reasonable, and that it would not mean that whatever sum a county council might spend would necessarily be refunded to them, if it happened to be of an altogether unreasonable character. Since then the matter has been the subject of discussion with the County Councils Association, and the words of the various Amendments standing in the name of the Minister of Transport are intended to produce a complete arrangement, and they have the assent both of the Treasury and the County Councils Association. I would like to read the Clause as it will stand as the result of these various Amendments—

to every county council by whom the said duties are levied an amount equal to any reasonable "expenses properly incurred by that council in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury. I think those words meet the points which were raised.

I do not think this Amendment carries us much further. The county councils ought to be reimbursed their full costs. There is far too much being imposed upon local authorities involving expenditure on their part. The idea of deciding what is reasonable may lead to the possibility of friction between the county councils and the Ministry. I have an Amendment down on the Paper to insert the word "all" because the local authorities are entitled to receive the full amount. If the Ministry of Transport is of opinion that the local authorities are extravagant, there are means for redressing that, but where a county council is exercising its function properly, it should be reimbursed the full amount of their expenses. The Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles on the 31st March, 1920, recommended that the whole cost of collection should be paid out of these funds. I observe that a number of other hon. Members have Amendments to deal with this point. May I say that I have been asked by the city of Glasgow to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The Corporation of Glasgow are much concerned about this duty being thrust upon them with no assurance that they will be reimbursed the total expenses incurred by them in their discharge of the duty. I am bound to say that I do not think the words proposed meet the case.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that this Amendment will not give security to the local authorities. In the past the Treasury have been so parsimonious that in London they have only given £4,000 per year, although the collection has cost as much as £16,000 a year. In future, the duty of collecting these licence duties will be more difficult and costly than in the past, because the class of vehicles liable has been greatly increased, and the London County Council will have to control all the commercial vehicles as well as those used for other purposes. Therefore, we ought to have some security that the Treasury are not going to be allowed in the future as in the past to make the local authorities their tax collectors and then shirk paying reasonable expenses. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to put in the word "reasonable" in view of the words "properly incurred" already occurring. Surely, if the expenses have been properly incurred they are reasonable. The Amendment which some of us have down to leave out the words "such amount in respect of" and at the end of the Sub-section to omit the reference to the "Regulations prescribed by the Treasury," so that it would read that the local authorities should get back the expenses properly incurred, would give far better security for a fair repayment of the costs to which they had been put in collecting the taxes than the suggested Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

I was very much surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport say that the Amendment had the full consent of the County Councils' Association. Of course, he speaks with great knowledge, but that is not in the least in accord with the information that was conveyed to me as late as the evening before last, when I had a consultation with the Secretary of that Association and with the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), who, unfortunately, is not here to-day. I understand that he was one of the deputation—I was not one myself —who attended from the Highways Committee to discuss the matter, and I was asked to come here to-day and urge the right hon. Gentleman to meet the local authorities in this matter. I think that the words suggested are likely to lead to the most undesirable friction between bodies which ought to act in complete harmony and accord. There is no necessity to put in any other words. I have an Amendment and other hon. Members have Amendments, but, if we can get the repayment of the expenses properly incurred, I do not see the necessity for any other words.

I should like the Committee to know what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the repayment of these expenses which makes us rather insistent in this matter. In the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, on 6th July, he was asked by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Buckinghamshire whether the collection was to be made by the local authority, and, if so, whether consideration would be given to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was one of considerable importance. The collection throughout would be by the local authority, and every penny of the cost of collection would be refunded. That had been allowed for in the figures which had been given. The hon. Member asked how it would be repaid, and the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be repaid out of the proceeds of the taxes. We say that this Amendment does not properly carry out that definite undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman. A definite promise was given that every penny of the cost of collection would be refunded out of the proceeds of the taxes. It is most unfortunate that words should be introduced that are likely to give rise to dispute as to what is reasonable. The Committee must bear in mind that this is a purely national service. The county councils will be acting as agents, and they ought not to run the risk of having to meet out of the rates absolutely necessary expenses, especially when every penny collected has to be paid into the Treasury and there is no certainty that they will get a single penny of it. For these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reconsider whether he could not put in some words which would give more effect to the very definite assurance and promise that he gave to the county councils in July last.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reconsider the matter and to accept the suggestion to substitute the word "all. "As a member of a local authority. I know from the few meetings that I have been able to attend that there is an obvious reluctance to take up these duties unless tie local authorities are certain that the cost will be borne by the Treasury and that a form of words will be inserted here to make that clear. If the word "all" were substituted, it would be so free from ambiguity that the county councils would be willing to get on with the job.

I do not think that there is any real difference of opinion between us. It is only a question of finding appropriate words to do two things which will be desired by every member of the Committee. First, we wish to secure to the county councils to the full all the costs which they properly incur in carrying out the duties imposed upon them under this Statute, in which, in point of fact, they have a direct interest, because county roads will be materially assisted out of the funds. The next point on which I hope there is equal agreement is that we must have some sort of safeguard against extravagant administration. These are the points we desire to cover by the Clause as amended. A suggestion has been made since I last addressed the Committee that we should insert the word "all." I have no objection to that being done. I do not think it adds anything to or detracts anything from the Clause. If you say you want to pay people reasonable expenses properly incurred it means all expenses, and if it will satisfy the hon. Member we have no objection to accepting the suggestion. The other suggestion was that the word "reasonable" should be omitted. It seems to me that if expenses are properly incurred they must be reasonably incurred. I am, however, quite prepared to see whether we can put in any words which will exactly meet the desires of the hon. Member. I suggest the Clause should read

to every county council by whom the said duties are levied, all the expenses properly incurred by that Council in or in connection with the levying of the duties, and the registration of the vehicle in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury. It is the directions which must have the approval of the Treasury, and not the specific amount to be paid by way of expenses. I think the Section as amended might fully satisfy the Members of the Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment originally proposed.

Before that is done I would like to say a word—

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw all the Amendment he has moved?

I think the Amendment should stand to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and I move that.

Then the Amendment is to leave out the words, "such amount in respect of the," and to insert the words, "an amount equal to any."

No; I wish to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the," and to insert instead thereof the word "all."

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the Amendment already moved?

Yes.

I object to the Amendment being withdrawn. I am in favour of the original Amendment. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend, who seemed to think that the withdrawal of the word "reasonable" would cover his point. I do not think it will. I want to see the word "reasonable" inserted, so that if a county council should choose to incur unreasonable expenses, it would be obliged to go to the ratepayers. I do not share the opinion that county council people can be trusted. I look upon them, as a whole, as most extravagant bodies. I was living in the hope, at any rate, that to-day I might have the pleasure of supporting the Minister of Transport and following him into the Lobby. Now he dashes all my hopes to the ground, and accepts an Amendment which I think will encourage extravagance and put on the taxpayers a burden they ought not to bear. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position and to stick to the Amendment which he recently introduced. I know that the Labour party are in favour of the altered Amendment but, naturally, they are all for extravagance, because they hold the more money that can be spent the better it is. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen the red light which the Labour party has shown. I object to the withdrawal.

3.0 P.M.

It is too bad of my right hon. Friend to deny to the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken the only anticipatory pleasure I have ever heard him express in this House, and if there were no other reason, I think the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his proposal at the request of the right hon. Baronet. I. rose, not so much for the purpose of getting elucidation on this point, as because, as my right hon. Friend knows, the position in Ireland, with which I am more immediately concerned, is somewhat different to what it is here. I will take the case of Belfast, with whose interests I am specially charged. The corporation there has revenues from registration fees, fees on drivers' licences, transfers and hackney carriage licences, and these represent a substantial sum, having during the last five years averaged £3,000 per year. Before I can consent to any transfer of this revenue from the left-hand trouser pocket to the right-hand trouser pocket, or from both pockets to the pocket of some other garment, I want to be perfectly satisfied as to what is going to happen to the corporation. I am not clear now, and I submit that the position should be made clear. The Belfast Corporation, and bodies similarly situated, incur at the moment certain expenses for the collection of these revenues, and I think there should be a clear and explicit assurance that they will continue to get the revenue in addition to all the expenses necessarily and properly incurred in connection with the collection of the motor licence duties. I want a distinct assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the position of these bodies will not be prejudiced. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the official return published by the Department in regard to collections in Ireland, he will find that six counties and boroughs collect between them £7,600, of which the Corporation of Belfast alone collects £4,750. If I take two or three counties adjoining, I find in precisely the same way the major portion of the duties collected come in effect from five counties and one borough. How does Belfast come out of the transaction? It gets 5 per cent.—£237—for collecting nearly £4,800 for the Road Board; and every appeal that has been made by the corporation to the Road Board for assistance in the maintenance of roads has been met by a stern refusal. That £4,750 odd, contributed by owners of motor cars in Belfast, is drafted out into remote parts of the South and West of Ireland for the benefit of their roads at our expense. Philanthropy is one thing, but sheer robbery is another, and no milder term will describe proceedings of that sort. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that a plea from a corporation which treats him so well is listened to with more sympathy than it has so far received. I observe that a tax of 15s. per tramway car is to be imposed, and we are to have that cast upon us as well. An enormous amount of damage is done to the tramway tracks by heavy motor lorries, and the ratepayers have to pay the bill out of their own pockets. I do not think that is fair treatment.

The hon. Member who has just sat down is apparently thinking of the next paragraph. The object of the Minister of Transport ought to be to protect the Road Fund from improper use, and I was prepared to support the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. The local authorities will say, "Here is a splendid fund. We can pay our clerks and our printers and everything we like, and charge it all to the Road Fund. We can have a large staff of public officials, and we do not have to collect the rates. It is an ideal system. Let us send down all the hon. Members we can to force this upon the House, so that in future we need not collect the rates, but can charge it all to the public Exchequer." I am a member of local bodies myself, and try to be as economical as possible, but it is well known that expenditure of which the Exchequer pays half, or a third, or three-fourths, as the case may be, is easier to get through a council than expenditure the whole of which has to fall on the rates. Under a proposal like this, the Clerk of the County Council will say, "How many clerks do you want to run this? Two or three? Well, we may as well have four. The motor car users pay it. Then, So-and-So is a very good fellow; let us put his salary up a bit. We do not pay it." In fact, there will be no limit to the expenditure. I do not think it is even strong enough as it is, and I was going to ask the Minister of Transport to lay down a limit. I see that he estimates that the cost of this collection of tax will be £300,000; but, unless we are very particular about this Sub-section, it will not be £300,000, but £600,000. I hope, there- fore, that sufficiently strong words will be put in to afford some check. It is a great misfortune if there is discord between county councils and any Government Department, and there must be someone to decide. Unless some words are put in to provide that, say, the Treasury must decide in case of a dispute, there will be constant discord between the local body and the Government Department, which is very unsatisfactory for the general concerns of the State. This Clause needs strengthening, so that only fair and reasonable sums may be expended, and in case of any dispute the Treasury should be the final arbiter.

Most of us on this side wish to support the withdrawal of this Amendment. So far as the intention is to limit expenditure in regard to this particular duty, we agree, but the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) was all that was desirable. I am not an authority on the exact meaning of words, but I should like to know if anyone can tell me the difference between expenses properly incurred and reasonable expenses. I think the authorities in this House would have some difficulty in defining the exact difference between those terms, and, so far as the words "properly incurred" are concerned, they will meet all that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has in mind. I do not think, so far as this Amendment is concerned, that he can accuse us of being extravagant. Who is going to carry out these duties? It will be the county councils, and I think I am accurate in stating that the county councils of this country are largely made up of members belonging to the party to which the right hon. Baronet belongs. If his statement is true that this is leading to extravagance, he is admitting that the party with which he is associated politically are the most extravagant people in the country, and that he is not prepared to trust his own party. I think that that is a logical inference.

I do not admit that at all. I admit that some people who used to be Conservatives still nominally call themselves Conservatives, but they are really something quite different. They are extravagant, but the old reactionary Tory is not.

I have not a very long experience myself, but I can say that most of us recognise that the right hon. baronet is at least consistent in his principles. However much we may differ from him with regard to his principles, we are always prepared to admit that he is very frank and fair and courteous in Debate. I think that the object and intention of the Ministry will be met by inserting the word "all"—"all expenses which are properly incurred." I agree that, as far as possible we ought to prevent any unnecessary friction between the Treasury and the local authorities, but that will be met best by not pressing the Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, and by accepting the Amendment which is down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If you begin to put in reasons why expenses are properly incurred, you have a multiplicity of words, and you have to show, first, that they are reasonable expenses, and, secondly, that they have been properly incurred. The hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir I. Philipps) said that there could be a multiplicity of clerks, and that printing expenses and a great many other things could be charged to this account, and passed as properly incurred expenses. But does anyone for a moment believe that the Government auditor would pass accounts of that character as being proper expenditure? I do not believe for a moment that the auditors who examine public accounts would be guilty of so gross a negligence. I do not think anything of the kind could happen if the Amendment was withdrawn. If the Government cast upon the local authorities certain duties which it is the duty of the State to perform, in their stead the State ought to be prepared to pay to the extent of the expenses incurred in carrying out those duties. It is just possible that the words which were proposed to be inserted would lead to an amount of friction as to reasonable, expenses, and it might lead to an amount of dissatisfaction, and it might lead to the county councils saying, "We do not want this duty any further because the Government is not prepared to pay for the duties we are willing to perform." Therefore I hope the Minister in charge, now that he has stated he is willing to withdraw his own Amendment and accept one which states that all the expenses properly incurred shall be paid, will stick to the Resolution he has arrived at.

We all really are after the same thing. It is a question of words, and under these circumstances the fewer words we have the better. My view is that it would be better to leave out both the word "unreasonable" and the word "all," so that the county council should be entitled to recover expenses properly incurred. If you leave out the word "all" you create an onus of proof on the Treasury to show that any particular expense has been improperly incurred. If the words are "expenses properly incurred" alone it will be left to the local auditor.

That means all expenses.

Yes, it really means all expenses. "Expenses properly incurred" means in fact all expenses, but it does not put that additional little emphasis which you put if you put in the word "all." We have to be pretty careful about these words, because in a case like this where you are making the local authorities your agents you have to see that that agency is carried out economically. We have to protect the taxpayer in that respect. We have to ensure that local authorities in carrying out these duties we put upon them get their expenses, but not more than their proper expenses, and therefore it would be a great mistake to put in the word "all," and it is very undesirable to have redundant words like "reasonable as well as proper." Therefore I urge the Government to reduce the Clause to the smallest number of words possible, not to accept the word "all" and leave out the word "reasonable."

Perhaps I may make a suggestion which might meet what I think is the purpose of the Committee. Leave to withdraw the present Amendment is refused, so I am bound to put the Question. Therefore I hope the Committee will decide to leave out the words "such amount in respect of the" and will also negative the proposed insertion of the word "reasonable." Then we should be open for another insertion.

Will not that prejudice the question of "all"? If you leave out "reasonable" you cannot accept the word "all."

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to complete my suggestion. I was going to suggest that, having negatived the proposed insertion, these words might meet the case:

"an amount equal to the expenses." It would then read— to every county council by whom the said duties are levied an amount equal to the expenses properly incurred by the council.

On behalf of the Government I should like to express our indebtedness to you for putting this matter in substantive form. I think it will meet everyone's view. I should be content to vote against the Amendment, as leave to withdraw has beer, refused, and later to move the words which the Chairman has intimated might be appropriate.

Question, "That the words 'such amount in respect of the' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'an amount equal to any reasonable' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

I beg to move, in Subsection (3, a ), after the word "levied" ["by whom the said duties are levied"], to insert the words "an amount equal to the".

I am quite agreeable, after what has been said, to cancel my Amendment, and to accept that of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3, a ), after the word "council" ["properly incurred by that council"], insert the words "in accordance with directions issued by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury."

After the word "duties" ["with the levying of the duties"] insert the words "and the registration of vehicles."

Leave out the words "as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act, with the consent of the Treasury." — [ Mr. Neal ].

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3, a ), to insert the words: and such Regulations shall provide for advances to be made to the said county councils at the commencement of each year and from time to time as may be necessary during the year on account of such expenses. For some years past county councils have been financed in carrying out State-aided schemes. This has resulted in long delays and great inconvenience to the councils. Representations have been made and it has been more or less the practice that payments on account have been made. The object of the Amendment is to give statutory permission for such practice as a matter of convenience to the county council. There can be no real objection to the Amendment which will only carry out what is more or less the practice at present.

My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying it has been the practice in the past to make these advances. It is intended to continue that practice, but we cannot quite accept the form of words which he suggests. I will accept the Amendment with the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall" and leaving out the words "at the commencement of each year." It is not necessary that the advance shall be made at the commencement of the year. I think the purpose he has in view will be met if the Amendment is moved in the form I suggest.

I accept that.

Amendments made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the word "shall" and insert instead thereof the word "may." Leave out the words "at the commencement of each year."—[ Mr. Neal. ]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, b ), after the word "the" ["represent the amount"], to insert the word "nett."

I have given notice of a subsequent Amendment so that if both were adopted the paragraph would read— to every local or police authority such sum as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine to represent the nett amount which, after allowing for the costs of administration and collection, would, if this Act had not been passed, have been received by the authority on account of fees or charges for the licensing of mechanically-propelled hackney carriages. The object is to have the local or police authority in no better position than they are in now solely on account of the old licences having been swept away and new licences credited to the Road Fund. I and those who think with me think if the Clause is left as drawn it will put the local and police authorities undeservedly in rather a better position. If the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual thoroughness and courtesy, shows me that that is not so I will be satisfied. If, owing to this Clause, the local authorities receive larger amounts and are let off the cost of administration, which they should not be let off, it will permit extravagance and will fail to protect the Road Fund. The last Amendment moved by the Minister was devised to protect the Road Fund.

The object of the Amendment is one with which I entirely agree. In theory it would be perfectly right to say that the police and local authorities should obtain nett cost. The only reason this has been put in this way is to save money. In certain areas, I am told the Metropolitan area is one, the police are, in fact, out of pocket. I understand from those who have inquired into this matter that exactly the same work will be done. There will be no extra charge, and it is a charge which will be included in the general licence duties.

If the police are collecting duties at a loss, and if that amounts, say, to £11,000, there is no reason why they should be given £10,000 out of the Road Fund. It is quite obvious that it would be wrong to pay more than the nett cost.

This deals with hackney carriages and is not what was covered by the previous Clause. The work will have to be covered just the same. What had to be considered was whether there should be paid the ascertained out-of-pocket expenses or what they get to-day. That would involve an elaborate ascertainment all over the country as to what were out-of-pocket expenses, and as the thing is so very small, it is considered better to let them have what they are getting to-day.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount is?

I will let the hon. Baronet know.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will further consider the matter between now and Report?

I shall be very pleased to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman.

In these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move in Sub-section (3, c ), after the word "expenses" ["part of the expenses"], to insert the words "not exceeding ten thousand pounds."

I move in order to find out the amount by which the Road Fund is going to be mulcted or reduced by the expenses. There is a tendency of all those Departments to increase the staffs. There must be an ample and sufficient staff to carry out the work but this is our only chance to protect the interests of the Road Fund and to see that too great a proportion of the expenses of the Ministry is not allocated to the Road Fund. I think all these are national matters and should be allocated to the Ministry generally, but as it is decided that the Road Fund must pay something I have inserted a definite figure and should like to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman what is likely to be the estimated charge under this head.

The total expenses of the Road Department will come annually before Parliament, and the House will have that opportunity to criticise. I have been in negotiations with the Treasury as to how we should interpret this Clause. I have been able to make an arrangement with the Treasury that it is to be limited strictly to expenditure incurred for the work for which the old road fund was originally intended. None of the other duties, such as lighting on vehicles, or any question which may arise in future which is not strictly applicable to the proper use of the fund which has succeeded that of the old road development, is to be charged upon this fund. The expenditure to-day, representing the administration of the old road development fund in its new form, is £48,790. If possible, I would like to show each item separately on the estimate so that full protection will be given.

I am beginning to feel that my efforts to improve the Bill are quite unnecessary. My right hon. Friend has been so kind in showing such a desire to protect the road fund that I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out paragraph. ( d ).

I move this Amendment in order to get some explanation as to what sum it is proposed to set apart for the purpose specified.

The principle of paragraph ( d ) was assented to in the Ministry of Transport Act. We have here only a new profession of it. This is necessary because of the huge development in mechanical road traction during the last fifteen or twenty years, more particularly since the War. The reason which actuated the House and the Government in providing that power should be given to contribute to the staff of a local authority for road work was simply this. Roads are no longer a purely local interest. They are a national interest. The expenditure to-day is roughly £40,000,000 on roads, and it is necessary that we should try to get highly skilled engineers on the staffs, because that would be the greatest economy. I am assured that an incompetent surveyor can waste more money on roads than an incompetent man in almost any other branch. Our object, therefore, is to get a good standard of men appointed throughout the country. The local authorities have got a great interest in appointing their men, but no one can contest that if you have a man such as Sir Henry Maybury at the head of your Roads Department, who is looking at roads on the whole, who is seeking to get a classification and comparing the cost of maintaining and making a mile of second or third class road, you ought to have some intimate touch with the surveyors and the officials who are carrying out that work, and know what their qualifications are.

It is impossible to say what this will amount to. The contributions which those for whom the hon. and gallant Member speaks in reference to the roads of the district depend on the classification. If every local authority in the country were to ask for a half, the cost, I am told, would be about £350,000 a year. It is in conceivable that they would all ask. I hope that they will, because I think that it will give a better standard of road engineering throughout the country, and I believe that you will save far more than any possible cost by getting really good engineers on the work. You cannot spend money better on roads than in helping local authorities to have really first-class engineers, who make it a profession. The suggestion of contributing a half, subject to approval, goes much further than the money or the approval. It makes the closest possible touch between the Minis try as trustees for the road fund and the local authorities, and ensures that road engineering is going to be a co-ordinated profession in the future, and not some thing which anybody can take up. I feel strongly about this point. The maximum possible will be £350,000, but that is quite fallacious, and the amount is more likely to be about £100,000 a year.

I cannot argue the whole thing now, but this is one of the Clauses which I fought most strenuously last year. It removes the control of the servants of the local authority from the local authority to the right hon. Gentleman

No.

It does very largely. The appointment of officers of the local authority is subject to the approval of the right hon. Gentleman and half the salary is paid. That is exactly what local doctors and sanitary officers have been trying to get for a long time so that they may get out of local control. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the figure of £100,000 as the probable amount of expenditure. I do not know whether he would be prepared to limit the amount to that figure. £350,000 is an enormous hole in the Road Fund. The engineers will be there all the same and will be doing their work all the same, but you are taking possibly £350,000 out of £8,000,000 contribution to local rates that otherwise would not be paid. I think the right hon. Gentleman might consider, between now and Report, whether he would accede to some limiting amount.

I understood the Minister to say that this will not interfere in the least with the supreme authority of the local authorities over their engineers. Is that so or not?

Yes, it is so.

This new system will have a very great effect on local government. In future the county surveyor or the urban or rural district sur- veyor will look to the Ministry for half his salary.

The authority will be the Fund. The surveyor does not look for his salary to the Ministry. He is entirely under the local authority.

The local authority will look to the Minister of Transport for half the salary of its surveyor. This also carries with it the natural corollary that the Minister would settle whether the man to be appointed is fit for the appointment which the county council or district council has made. It is interfering in a great way with the duties of the county councils, but at the same time it is raising the standard of the county surveyor, and I think the whole country will welcome that. We all know how in the old days the County of Kent had an overwhelming superiority over any other part of England in regard to its roads. I do not think I ever met the county surveyor, but he was known as a very superior workman in his particular trade. I believe he is the present head of the Road Department of the Ministry. If ever a man deserved promotion to the top of his profession it was certainly the man who made the roads of Kent. While I welcome this proposal, I hope it will not mean too much interference from the Minister of Transport.

I asked the Minister of Transport a question. I cannot fit his answer into the Bill.

I think that the hon. Gentleman, and other speakers, have failed to notice that the whole thing is permissive. No local authority is to ask for any contribution that it does not want, and its supreme authority is in no way interfered with. I have no authority over it unless it willingly comes to me and says, "We wish to obtain this grant, and if we get the grant we are prepared to see that the man who is to be paid as to half his salary by you through us, shall be mutually agreed to." That is all. It is open to them to accept the grant or not. The only reason we have for this proposal is that we feel much money could foe saved by doing what is proposed and intended, namely, the raising of the standard of the local surveyor. There is no obligation upon any local authority, but if it wishes it can come into the arrangement. Although we are not yet making these payments, we are already receiving, in anticipation, applications from all over the country from people who are saying, "Here is a man and here is another man. Whom would you recommend?" They are recognising that a road engineer's job is a specialist's job, and that money can be saved if a good man is appointed.

The observations of the Minister have certainly removed any misapprehension that was in my mind. He states that the whole provision is permissive. Of course, if local authorities are to come in and take advantage of the provision, they must be subject to some sort of control by the Minister. It seems in all respects an admirable proposal that the Minister, recognising the vast importance of raising the standard of the surveyor, is adopting this means of doing so.

This is a matter of very great importance, and I do not think it has been made quite clear to the Committee or to the country. We have heard from the Minister of Transport that the Ministry proposes to pay one half of the salary of the various road surveyors throughout the country. The Government reserve the right under the principle Act to say that wherever a contribution is paid in respect of the salary of any of these surveyors they have the right to approve or disapprove of the appointment of such surveyor. In effect that amounts to this, that no local authority will be free to appoint its own surveyors; it will be absolutely in the hands of the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a matter of mutual agreement. We all know what mutual agreement means as between a Minister of State and a county council. It means that the Minister of State is supreme and the Minister of Transport in this matter would be supreme.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), after the word "a" ["to a police"], insert the words "local or."— [ Mr. Johnstone ].

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ( Amendment of 9 Edw. 7, c 47) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

This Clause deals with the provisions as to licences. I have received a letter from a gentleman who suggests that in the case of vehicles let out on the hire-purchase system, the name of the owner and the name of the user might with advantage be attached to the car. I do not see in Clause 5 anything relating to the arrangement which my correspondent suggests. I presume that under Clause 12 it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make Regulations. I should like to knew whether he has considered the suggestion that the name of the owner and the name of the user should both be affixed to vehicles let on hire. If he has considered the suggestion, does he consider it a good one or a bad one?

The whole question of the fixing of the names to the car was considered, and everyone who made representations objected very much to having their name on their cars. They did not wish to be ear-marked everywhere they went, and they did not want everyone to know who they were. I do not think any difficulty will occur, because the licence attaches to the car, and the person who owns the car takes out the licence. If the car is sold, the licence goes with it. The licence is part of the car for a year, and is carried in a small aluminium frame, which costs 3s. 6d.

Five shillings!

Therefore, it does not matter who is using the car. The car has to have the licence attached.

I am much obliged.

4.0 P.M.

I should like some information on the question of licences. The whole of the provision regarding licences is looked upon by most motorists as being to a certain extent a burden upon them, though it may be a necessary burden. What is the actual position where the licence has to be carried? I believe it has to be carried somewhere on the near side of the vehicle, showing to the front. Is it really essential that the licence should be visible in the position indicated? The whole object of the licence is that the policeman or the Inland Revenue officer can see at a glance whether the car has its licence. Is it not possible for anybody with fraudulent intent to substitute a card, not necessarily of the same design, but of the same colour, in the licence frame, and to ride about gaily so long as he is not stopped? Is it not possible under those circumstances for fraud to arise? The only way to ensure against that is to stop the vehicle, and if it is to be stopped, is it necessary to carry the licence on the wind screen as proposed? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to allow the licence to be carried on the inside of the door, on the near side of the driver's seat. The licence has to be carried in a small metal frame. It is possible that the frame may get covered with grease or dust, and the licence may consequently become obscured. What will be the fate of the motorist whose licence is obscured or held to be partially obscured by a policeman? Some of us know how energetic the police can be. There have been cases where motorists have been brought up because the letters on the number plate have been one-sixteenth of an inch too big or too small. If a certain amount of dust or mud gets on the licence, what will be the position of the owner of the vehicle? Supposing the licence frame is not water-tight. It is specified that it is to have a rubber ring inside, with the idea of making it water-tight. Headlamps are supposed to be watertight, but water gets inside through condensation, and it may well be that water may get inside the licence frame and obscure the licence or damage it. Supposing you take out a licence and within a short time water gets inside the frame, and the licence is damaged. Would it be necessary to replace the licence, and if so, how much would it cost? The only way in which you can make sure that the licence really belongs to the car is by comparing the number of the licence and the number of the car, and in order to do so you will have to stop the car. That brings me back to my original contention about the carrying of the licence. We are now well on in December and we have to get the licences on the cars by the 1st January. That is a short time in which to comply with the Regulations. Recently there was a great motor exhibition in London, and it was quite impossible for the people in the trade to find out exactly what was proposed in the direction of licences, except by the courtesy of the Minister and of the Ministry in allowing them to see them. These proposals have been before the Advisory Committee, but what that Committee did or agreed to was entirely unknown to the majority of the trade. Will the Minister allow a short, reasonable period of grace to anybody who is not able to get his frame on his car by the 1st January providing that he has paid his licence? I suggest a period of a week might be allowed

In regard to the registration marks, I thought that subject came better under Clause 12.

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with the whole thing on Clause 12.

I was talking about the Excise licence.

If it be convenient to the Committee, I shall allow both points to be raised together on Clause 12.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I should like to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words and the mark indicating the registered number of the vehicle and the council with which the vehicle is registered shall be fixed on the vehicle or on any other vehicle drawn by that vehicle or on both in the prescribed manner. I understand this is the provision under which an Order has already been drawn up requiring a water-tight metal-bound clamp to be fitted on every motor vehicle, and I wish to omit this provision altogether. I have been amazed to find the number of letters coming to me from my own constituency from people who only now have awakened to the amount of gratuitous departmental interference with the elementary rights of the subject which is being inflicted on them in connection with motoring.

I understand the hon. Member was referring to the watertight case, but the words he proposes to leave out appear to me to refer only to the registration number on the back of the car. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if that is so.

Yes, it is.

Am I to understand that under this Clause the provisions regarding the fixing on the vehicle of this new form of licence do not arise?

This is the registration number.

I am afraid we have endured the registration numbers too long to object to them at this time of day, but I am mainly objecting to the other provision.

May I point out that the marginal note to the Clause is, "Registration and identification marks."

Those are the old plates.

Does not this come in on Clause 12?

Yes.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I have not put it to the Committee, so there is no need for the hon. Member to withdraw it.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "way" ["in any way"], to insert the word "knowingly."

This is to prevent a person being liable to a penalty of £50 by the mere fact that this little label that we have to go about the world with, and which has been invented by the Minister of Transport—

That is the very subject my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw) was referring to a moment ago. This Clause deals with the ordinary number plate.

The licence card is new. The identification plate is the registration number which we all carry on our cars to-day, and which we shall not change. The new thing is the little card on the back.

I am raising the point of the old number plate. I have not the present regulations with me, but here it is laid down that if these plates are "obscured, or rendered, or allowed to become not easily distinguishable," you will be liable to a penalty of £50. That simply means that when you are driving along a muddy road, and you have got your number plate slightly dulled, you are liable to £50. It is absurd; no Court in the country would fine a man £50 for such a thing, and it ought not to be put in here unless the word "knowingly" is added. In London yesterday none of these numbers would have been distinguishable at all, but under this Clause every car on a foggy day in London would be liable to a fine of £50 for going out of its garage.

This is one of several Amendments the object of which is to insert knowledge as the essence of a criminal offence. That has been considered most carefully by the advisers of the Government from the point of view of parliamentary draftsmanship, and there is a strong objection to the insertion of the word "knowingly" or "intentionally" in some Statutes when it is not put in others. It results in a great confusion in the Statute Book. The matter was most carefully considered, and the general principle of law is that a criminal offence cannot be committed unknowingly. I cannot therefore accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact, these words are introduced exactly from the Motor Car Act, 1903. They do not introduce any new offences at all, and it is most important that these identification numbers should be legible and easily distinguishable. The object of that identification number is well known. A motor car proceeding along the road is involved in some accident, and unless the mark is readily observable that car may get clear and never be found, and therefore to whittle down the provisions as to the necessity for identification marks being clear would, I think, be a retrograde step. When you come to practical matters, of course any Court which tried a case of this description, and came to the conclusion that a defendant had committed an offence without criminal intent, the Court need not record a conviction. That which my hon. Friend has in mind is covered by the general law because under one of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, when a Court has come to a conclusion that a person has not committed an offence intentionally, they are not to record a conviction.

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not withdraw his Amendment, which, I think, absolutely necessary after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. The Parliamentary Secretary has just made what is to many of us a very astonishing statement, that you cannot commit a crime unknowingly. That may be the law, but I think it is within the knowledge of all of us who have any experience of bicycles or motors that that is not the practice of the Courts, and that these technical offences are used as a revenue-producing machine. People are sent out to catch those whose tail lamps have blown out on a windy or wet night, or for some other small and involuntary offences, and they have mulcted them in very considerable fines. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have some word to secure the object mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Southampton. I do not think the word "knowingly" would get out of the difficulty. You would still be prevented from using your motor car in the conditions he mentioned. I think you want something more comprehensive and something to provide that P man shall not be fined unless the technical offence is his own fault. It is rather a matter for legal drafting than for a lay man to suggest, but we ought to have some direction, or else this Bill will be used for the purpose of blackmail.

I do hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not withdraw his Amendment. I plead guilty to having a certain experience of what sort of chance a. motorist, who errs absolutely unwittingly, has when be appears before a Court of so-called justice. The word of anybody is taken against him. A policeman may say anything he likes. It does not matter what the motorist says; a conviction is almost invariably recorded against him. I hope, therefore, if the right hon. Gentlemen cannot accept the word "knowingly," some other word or words will be found, so that where a motorist has been had up for an offence of which he is quite unconscious, a certain latitude, at any rate, may be given to the law to cover that point. I was present at a police court not very long ago where a discharged soldier was had up for riding a motor-bicycle, and allowing some portion of his coat to blow across the number-plate. It was quite an unconscious offence on his part. He wrote to the court that he was a married man, had a family of seven children, had been out of work for four months, that this was the only time he had had his motor-bicycle out in that time, and he could not at the moment afford any petrol to run it any more. He asked if he could be given time to pay. They fined him 40s. I nearly asked a question in the House, but did not do so, because I thought I was not entitled to ask it. That is the sort of penalty inflicted for such an offence. I admit that you cannot mete out too severe a sentence on a man who obscures his motor-plate by putting grease or dust on it, but in a small petty case, such as I have described, cannot we possibly make some provision in this Clause, so that a man may not have a penalty inflicted on him unless he commits an offence knowingly?

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will persist in this Amendment. I am bound to say I do not agree with the statement of law made by the Parliamentary Secretary. My view is that the word "knowingly" has a very important value, and it has a well-recognised definition. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act you have an offence for selling some article not of a certain quality, and there is another offence in the same Statute, to my recollection, preceded by the word "knowingly," and the Courts have ever drawn a distinction between the two. My recollection of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, again, varies from that of the Parliamentary Secretary, and that if the offence charged is mens rea, and the magistrates do not think, in their discretion, that they need record a conviction, they may dismiss the case on payment of costs. I do not think it can be suggested that, because you are in a dark fog and your mark is obscured, you have committed an offence. I think the word "knowingly" covers the matter. I do not think I would go all the way with the Noble Lord opposite, but I think it is within the experience of some that benches of magistrates are not always so well disposed towards motorists as towards some others.

Might I suggest that we put in the word "wilfully" instead of "knowingly"? That would go a little further. I am not a motorist, and have never been had up in a police court, but I am a magistrate, and I do think some word is necessary.

It is very difficult for a layman, when lawyers disagree, to know exactly what to say. If the Committee would allow me, I would like to get the Clause now, and I will see what I can do between now and Report or in another place. Undoubtedly, rightly or wrongly, motorists have a feeling—as some of us know—there may not have been a reason for it—on the subject that the revenue from fines on motorists is an important consideration to the local authority. If that is in the minds of hon. Members, let me say that this Bill provides for all these fines going into the Road Fund; that is a very important safeguard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the Committee will allow me I will look at the matter with the Parliamentary draughtsman and see if I cannot in some such way and by words suggested by the right hon. Baronet, "wilfully or negligently" meet the case. But I would point out that this very provision has been in force for 17 years, and I do not think there has been any great cause for complaint—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]— of persons being penalised knowingly. However, I will look into the matter.

I should like to be quite sure what it is that is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman between now and the further consideration of the Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite pointed out, there seems to be a difference from the view of the Parliamentary Secretary who said an offence could be committed under this Clause whether the subject did or did not know the identi- fication mark had been obscured. Certainly there is all the difference in the world as to whether you have an element of knowledge between an act committed by a person or an act which is to be done or not by the person, and, as in this case, a fact to be established. Surely in this-case if the board is obscured and is not easily distinguishable an offence will be committed whether the owner of the car knew it was so obscured or did not know. I understand, and that is what I want to make clear, that the Minister is going to have words considered which will provide that no offence shall be committed unless the subject has knowledge that the registration number is obscured, and not easily distinguishable.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to insert words at this stage to meet the point put forward? Whether he inserts "knowingly" which I think is preferable, or "wilfully" which will meet the case I have in mind does not much matter; but if we leave it to the right hon. Gentleman's very courteous promise of consideration to put in words, this Bill may come on on Report stage at four o'clock in the morning, and those of us who are interested may be having a snooze in the library, and the Sub-section might get through without it being noticed. I do think my right hon. Friend will agree that this is really an important point. He says that he does not think that many of these cases have appeared in the Courts. May I tell hon. Members that I have been quite unconscious of the fact that my tail-light was out and have been shaken out of my car in the suburbs of Manchester and run in, and although I could show that my light was actually warm I was brought up before a very wise, magistrate who acted on the advice of my hon. and learned Friend below me. Otherwise I might have had my licence endorsed. It was actually said in Court by the policeman that the tail-light was warm when he put his hand on it. So that these sort of charges are made, and you get very little consideration in a court of summary jurisdiction. I do hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will not leave this point to the Report stage, but put in one or other of the words suggested, and if, on further consideration with his advisers, he finds that the word or words will not do then it can be altered on the Report stage or in another place.

I hope the Committee will not press me, because one has really to take the advice of the parliamentary draftsmen before coming to a conclusion in this matter. It is well known that the Committee or the House always gives great consideration to the experts in matters of this sort. But I will do my best and try to meet the point, if it is necessary to meet it, between now and the Report stage. At the same time I am really forced to the conclusion that the concluding paragraph of the Clause provides very much for what we are discussing. It says: Provided that a person charged under this Section with obscuring a mark or rendering or allowing it to become not easily distinguishable shall not be liable to be convicted on the charge if he proves that he has taken all steps reasonably practicable to prevent the mark being obscured or rendered not easily distinguishable. That goes a very long way, I think, to meet the point.

I hope this Amendment will not be withdrawn, though I agree it is not reasonable to ask the Minister of Transport to commit himself now. But I do not think he would in any way suffer by accepting these words without prejudice to his putting down an Amendment on the Report stage if so advised by the draftsman. If something of this kind is not done, this Bill may come up at three or four o'clock in the morning, and the matter will probably not be challenged at all, as there will be no one here, and we shall get no redress.

The Sub-section reads: If the mark to be fixed in accordance with this Act is not so fixed …. What does "so fixed" mean? If it is three and a half inches from the centre of the glass and it ought to be three inches—

We are not dealing with that point at the moment.

I do hope my right hon. Friend will not force it to a Division. We have been very agreeable to him this afternoon, and we might have criticised more, or perhaps taken more exception to things; but there is here put upon the person charged the onus of proving his innocence, which English law never does. It is not fair. Motorists have to prove, supposing there is mud on our numberplate, that we have taken all steps reasonable and practicable to take it off—in other words, that we have got out on a muddy road and wiped the numberplate with our best silk handkerchief.

That does not sound reasonable.

It would not, perhaps, be reasonable for my right hon. Friend to take his handkerchief, but the court might hold that it was reasonable that we should carry a rag for the purpose of wiping off the mud. I think the right hon. Gentleman might accept the words suggested. We cannot keep our eyes permanently on the Report stage. If he does accept the proposed Amendment we have a chance of putting down; an Amendment on the Report stage, and so has he, and the matter will not, therefore, be forgotten. He has been so amiable that I trust he will accede to the present request.

The right hon. Gentleman can put down "wilfully and negligently" on the clear understanding that after he consults the draftsman he is at liberty either to withdraw the words or to put in other words. He is not in any way injured if he meets the wishes of the House, and it will save time now.

On the understanding that, if necessary, I can revise the matter on Report, and because of the amiability of the Committee, I will accede to the request put to me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "way" ["is in any way observed"], to insert the words "wilfully or negligently."

After all, there is another side to this question. I have known men who have taken every precaution to keep their number plate clean. I would not accuse any hon. Member of being guilty of excessive speed driving, and after an accident riding on, but there have been cases of that character, and therefore legislation of this kind is necessary in order to catch the guilty, although such a provision may sometimes inflict hardships on the innocent. After all, people are constantly riding in motor cars and coming along streets in thickly-populated districts, and in those circumstances it may be to the advantage of some people to obscure the number plate.

That would be wilful.

And the owner might plead that it had got covered with mud riding along the road. I would like to protect any hon. Member or any person who tries to keep his number plate clean, and who is cautious in driving through thickly-populated districts, but that does not meet the case. Cases have occurred of little children being run over and killed, and instead of the motorist stopping he has rushed away to escape detection. I know we should all be pleased to lay hands on those people, but I think the Minister of Transport might have consulted some other authority before acceding to this Amendment. I think he should have waited until he had consulted his own Department in order to find some words that would have met everybody's objection.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not stuck to his guns in regard to this point. One of the reasons given by an hon. Member opposite is that if this point is left to the Report stage he might be disturbed in the smoke room.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "exceeding," to insert the words in respect to the first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in respect of the second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding. As the Bill stands at present, it is only a penalty of £20 for the first offence. You may be fined £50 if your number-plate is half an inch out of the centre-point wherever it may be ordered to be fixed. If the mark is not so fixed, or is in any way obscured, for each offence you are liable to a £50 penalty.

I am willing to accept this Amendment with certain verbal alterations. The Amendment I suggest is as follows: After the words "Summary conviction," to insert the words "in respect of the first offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds and in respect of the second or subsequent offence."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "conviction," insert the words, "in respect of the first offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in respect of the second or subsequent offence."— [ Sir I. Philipps. ]

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words Provided also that a person shall not be liable to a penalty under this Section if he proves that he has had no reasonable opportunity of registering such vehicle in accordance with this Section, and that the vehicle is being driven on a public road for the purpose of being so registered.

I do not think that I can accept this Amendment. There is no reason why a vehicle should be driven anywhere to be registered, because the whole thing can be done through the post. The form is filled up and sent to the local authority, and subsequently to the Post Office, and the vehicle need never go at all.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On most private cars, and, indeed, on a large number of commercial vehicles, certain number plates are used at present which are not in accordance with the Regulations—I mean alluminium number plates. Those plates are so constructed that they do not comply with the requirements of the existing Motor Car Act. When the Minister is making his Regulations, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have it made quite clear exactly what is a legal number plate and what is not.

Supposing an offence is committed under this section by a light being blown out and a conviction follows. Is that conviction to be endorsed on the driver's licence. We all know the grave injustice which ensues. A man, say a professional paid driver, meets with some accident by which his tail light is blown out. The conviction is endorsed on his licence, and every time he goes to get a job that conviction, on a purely technical offence, remains for the rest of his life a black mark against him. Are these two Acts to be read together? The Act of 1903 provides that any offence, except the first or second offence of exceeding the speed limit, shall be endorsed on the driver's licence. We have all sorts of ridiculous offences, including a variation of one-sixteenth part of an inch in the number place, and the blowing out of a tail-light, and the magistrates must endorse them, they have no option. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether the comparatively trifling class of case covered by this section is to be endorsed on the driver's licence and remain a black mark against him for all time? I know no other offence in the criminal law which places so disabling a mark against a man as is placed against a motor driver under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903. If my right hon. Friend is unable to give us an assurance that the provisions of this section are not to be read along with the Act of 1903, and that they do not include this life-long endorsing of the licence, I beg to give notice that on the Report stage, I shall move an Amendment to the effect that in none of these cases shall the driver's licence be endorsed, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he has had communications with his legal advisers on this subject, and that this very severe penalty, especially in the case of paid drivers, will not follow.

The whole thing should be wiped out and put an end to altogether. It is a discreditable thing to have it on the Statute Book.

We must all be in sympathy with a good deal of what my hon. Friend has said. Under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903, if a person who holds a driver's licence is convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor car, other than a first or second offence, consisting solely of exceeding any limit of speed, he shall produce his driver's licence within a reasonable time for the purpose of endorsement. If my hon. Friend looks at Clause 6, he will see that it does not deal with drivers' licences at all. It is not an offence qua driver.

I had occasion, when I was in practice, to go into this matter at some length, and my hon. Friend may be amazed to find that all these offences, obscuration of numbers, and lamps going out have been held by the Divisional Court to be offences in connection with the driving of motor cars, and, of course, it follows that the driver of a motor car whose number becomes not easily distinguishable or obscured has his licence endorsed.

All I can say is that the point is now raised for the first time, and we will give it very full consideration.

I desire to support what the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has said and to urge that some steps should be taken to prevent people who were driving during the War, and who have letters slightly too small, finding themselves liable to this penalty. There are cars the letters on which are too small, and the owners are ignorant of the fact. There was a case where the letters were altered within 24 hours of the notice given by the police, and where the man three months afterwards was summoned and fined.

I want to remind my hon. Friend that this Clause provides that a person driving the vehicle and committing such an offence shall be fined. Therefore his statement that the penalty and the perpetuation of the penalty applies to those who fix the plate and not to the driver is not well founded. As a matter of fact, the driver is specifically mentioned.