I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause has reference to the three Clauses in the Bill dealing with the rate of speed of motor vehicles, reckless or dangerous driving and careless driving. The object of the Clause is to enable the person who is alleged to have offended to obtain, on written application to the police authorities, and on payment of 1s., details and particulars of the offence with which he is charged. The ordinary form of summons is extremely vague. We are told only that in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty, in the month of August, in the county of Essex, so and so did unlawfully drive a motor car on a certain highway there situated in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to the form of the statute. We say that the person charged ought to be able to obtain further particulars of the offence alleged against him. On any particular day he may have driven in that county over half-a-dozen roads, made half-a-dozen journeys, and he ought to have further particulars to enable him to prepare his defence.

When this point was raised in Committee the Government told us, on behalf of the police authorities, that such a requirement was unprecedented and impracticable, and that it would impose an enormous amount of additional work. My answer to that is that the police have to support this charge in court when the hearing takes place, and what additional work would there be in furnishing these full particulars a few days beforehand on payment of 1s? I should have thought the Minister of Transport would have been attracted by the bait of 1s. All the motoring organisations, which deal with more motoring offences than anyone else in the kingdom, are very anxious to see this amendment made. They know how vague the charges are. The Solicitor-General, whom we are glad to see back again, said in Committee that he would consult with his friends at the Home Office, with the Home Secretary and with the police authorities, to see whether they could come to some arrangement regarding the form of summons. He said they had every desire to assist, and that if the Committee would accept that assurance he would look into the matter. I would like to know what he has done in the meantime, and whether the Home Office agree to the proposal I am making.

I beg to second the Motion.

I would appeal to the Minister of Transport and to the Solicitor-General to consider it very seriously. In this Bill we are making many changes in the penalties to be imposed upon motorists. We propose to send people to prison for the new offence of careless or reckless driving. As these penalties are being increased, it is only right that an accused person should be able to get beforehand particulars of what is alleged to have taken place, so that he may prepare his defence. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), has said, very little information is given on the summons.

In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the Committee, I went into this matter with the Under-Secretary of State of the Home Department and the Officials of that Department. I think I said in Committee that, so far as I was aware, there was in practice, no real difficulty in connection with these cases, which come before a court of summary jurisdiction. At least, I was not aware of them, although I could not say that I had had much experience of police court practice in recent years. As a result of my inquiry into the matter I find that the point was carefully considered in connection with the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, and the law was brought up to date as compared with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1S48. The Criminal Justice Act, 1925, provides in terms that necessary particulars shall be set out without using technical language, and I think that is quite sufficient. As regards the demand for the supply of particulars in the hands of the police on payment of 1s., I could not possibly ask the House to accept that proposal. I have used this argument before, but I would like to repeat it, that it is desirable to avoid setting up a separate kind of administration of criminal justice for the benefit of motorists. If the motorists are to have the advantage of all the details in the hands of the police upon which a charge has been based so, I suppose, must the burglar, the coiner, the forger and other offenders. It would be most undesirable to introduce this innovation in the administration of our criminal law, and I hope that as this proposal was not pressed to a division in the Committee it will not be insisted upon now.

I cannot agree with the Solicitor-General in the analogy he has drawn between the motorist and the burglar and——

Why?

I hope the hon. Member will wait a moment. I have not completed my first sentence. What happens to the motorist? In many cases where he is alleged to have been driving dangerously he is not stopped at the time, and a week or it may be a month after the alleged offence he gets a summons to say that on the 23rd of June, 1930, in the High Street, he committed the offence of dangerous driving; and that is all. I do not want to delay the proceedings or obstruct the Bill, but I put it to hon. Members that it is difficult for the alleged law breaker—it might be anybody in this House—to get rebutting evidence unless he is supplied with further details as to what part of the High Street it was and what form the dangerous driving took. That is all that is asked for. The unfortunate motorist, who may very well be an innocent man, should be given such details as will enable him to collect evidence to prove that he is innocent when the charge is taken before the magistrate.

On this Motion, I must support the Solicitor-General. Perhaps I can approach this matter from a different angle from that of most Members of the House, for I have had occasion to prosecute and also to defend a number of persons who have been charged with motoring offences. I do not know a single case where any one has suggested that a defendant has been placed at a disadvantage in regard to this matter. I do not think it is suggested by those who support the Clause that there has been any hardship in this respect in the past. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), who proposed the Clause, has referred to the form of the summons, but I have never seen a form of summons of so vague a character as that to which he has referred. Hon. Members may have had the misfortune to have been defendants in respect of offences of this kind. We realise that there must be a certain amount of detail in the summons stating that it was served at So-and-So in the parish of So-and-So, in the County of So-and-So, and such details. If that is not sufficient, I do not know what is expected unless the suggestion is that the summons should contain the whole of the evidence in the possession of the police. The form of the Amendment goes as far as that. It provides not merely that the particulars of the summons should be extended, but also that the defendant should be supplied with

"a copy of the particulars in possession of the police upon which the charge is based."

Surely that would deprive the whole of the evidence of its value. Why should motorists be singled out for special treatment in this way? Every other person charged with any of the offences dealt with under this Bill receives exactly the same treatment as the motorist, and there is no reason why motorists should be singled out for special treatment.

The House will remember that under the Motor Car Act of 1903, where a person is prosecuted for an offence against the speed limit, he cannot be convicted unless he has been warned of the intended prosecution at the time the offence was committed. That is a very valuable protection, because the motorist has to be stopped and told what he is supposed to have been doing, and informed that he will be prosecuted. That Section ensures to the motorist the kind of information which this Clause asks for, and it is not reproduced in this Bill. That is one argument in favour of the new Clause.

Under this Bill, the offences which are to be dealt with are of a vague kind. There has never been anything in our jurisprudence as vague as the offence of driving a motor vehicle without due attention or without due consideration for other persons. One can conceive nothing so vague as that. The charge is not merely one of careless driving or driving without reasonable consideration far other persons. The motorist will not have the faintest idea what is going to be alleged against him. When you are creating offences of this kind, it is very important that a man should know exactly what he is charged with, and all the particulars which the police have in their possession should be given to him. This new Clause will not help the guilty person, but it will help the innocent person to establish his innocence. The Solicitor-General asks why we should give motorists special treatment which we do not give to other persons. At the present moment the law provides that all the evidence which is going to be called against a defendant at the trial shall be produced before the magistrate when he comes up to be tried in the first instance. When the coiner or the forger comes to be tried he has the protection for which this new Clause asks. In this case, all the evidence has been given before the magistrates, but even the coiner and the forger can be supplied with a copy of the depositions, and, if they wish it, they can have copies of the evidence supplied to them. In cases of that kind, the law secures for the men who are charged the fullest details of the evidence which is going to be given against them.

Now the Government are proposing to deal in a summary way with a serious class of offence, and I think it is only reasonable to ask that the defendant should be supplied with all the particulars of the offence with which he is charged. The object ought not to be to secure convictions which are not well founded, and we ought to place all the cards on the table. It is very hard upon a defendant to have evidence brought to light of which he had not the faintest idea before he appeared in the court. In that case, if the defendant had been supplied with the evidence, he might have been able to call witneses, and a man who is innocent should not be deprived of the oportunity of doing so.

Unfortunately, I did not hear this new Clause moved, but I have been induced to intervene by the observations which have been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). The claim which he has put forward is so vague that it is very surprising to hear it supported by hon. Members who have had a long experience of the administration of justice. In a sentence, the claim which the hon. and learned Member has put forward is that a defendant should be supplied, before his trial, with all the evidence which he has to meet. The particulars asked for in this new Clause are matters which the defendant has to meet. It is a claim that before a summons is heard the defendant should be supplied with all these particulars. No such claim is entertained by law in respect of any section of the community. Why should it be granted in respect of motorists?

The case which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham is where a, man, baying been sent for trial, has the right to be supplied with copies of the depositions, and all the evidence of the court below is available to the defendant, but in no case where summary proceedings are taken is it customary, or it is in accordance with justice, that the defendant should be supplied with the evidence which he has to meet. The suggestion that a man having to meet these summary charges is not aware of the circumstances upon which the charge is founded is a suggestion which may come from excited motorists, but ought not to come from any experienced member of the Bar.

I rise because of the observations of the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn Jones), who has spoken of his experiences since the passing, of the Act of 1903. I would remind the House and the hon. Member that this Bill very materially alters the law as to motoring offences, and that the penalties under it are very much increased. Furthermore, under the Bill it will be within the right of any person to make a most serious charge, which may have to be tried by a judge and jury and may involve a long term of imprisonment. If it is to be possible for a motorist to be told that a long time previously, in some obscure place many miles from his home, he was driving to the danger of the public, when he has not the remotest idea that he was driving in any other than the ordinary way and was not warned at the time, it is preposterous that he should be so limited in his defence as not to have the particulars necessary for the preparation of that defence. If the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) will read the terms of this proposed new Clause, he will see that it provides that the motorist charged shall be entitled to

"a copy of the particulars in possession of the police upon which the charge is based."

Surely, that means particulars as to where he was driving, who has given the information, and what is the precise form of the objection to his driving on that occasion. I think it is quite reasonable that the person charged should have that information, and, if I may say so, I think that the cases of the burglar and the coiner, to which the Solicitor-General has referred, are in quite a different category, for the reason that the burglar or the coiner knows quite well what is the charge that is being made against him. The motorist, however, under this Bill, may be charged with a very serious offence involving imprisonment, and may not have the remotest idea of the nature of the offence with which he is charged or the place where it is alleged to have been committed.

Practical experiences in matters of this sort are more powerful than arguments. I myself have been in this position, that, some 14 days after passing through a certain part of England about 120 miles away from my home, I received a summons from the local police stating that I drove to the danger of the public. I had no means whatever of knowing what the accusation was and upon what it rested, and I had to take my solicitor and my chauffeur down, and to take a day from my business, which I could ill afford on account of important affairs that I had in hand, to defend myself against a charge about which I knew nothing. I considered that I suffered a very great injustice in not being supplied with the details of the accusation made against me, and that experience convinces me that this proposed new Clause deals with a real and actual hardship on motorists who are not informed definitely what the charge is in such cases.

Were you convicted?

I understand, from the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway, that they fear that there may be some hardship and injustice done to individuals if no alteration in practice and procedure is made in this regard. At the same time, the speeches of other hon. Members and of the Solicitor-General himself show that this proposal would introduce an entirely new departure, and might set up a most inconvenient precedent. May I suggest to the Government that, as soon as the Bill is passed, a circular should be issued by the Home Office to the police authorities throughout the country with regard to the methods of enforcing the Act? It should be quite possible in such a circular for the Home Secretary to express a desire that the police authorities, in issuing summonses of this character, should specify more precisely, perhaps, than they otherwise would, the charge that is made against the individual, in order that grievances should not arise such as that referred to by the last speaker. Since a circular must be issued, it would be proper that this matter should be included in it, and perhaps, if the Government would give an undertaking in that sense, it might satisfy the apprehensions which have been expressed.

The suggestion of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), that a circular should be issued by the Home Office, will not only be taken into account, but, in spite of the fact that the suggestion has only just been made, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department informs me that it will be adopted. I think it has been forgotten, in the discussion on this Clause, that, in any case in which the defendant is in difficulty in regard to evidence for which he is not ready, the courts are never backward in granting an adjournment in order that the defence may be the better prepared, and I really think that all points of substance in this connection are already met. The procedure suggested in this Clause would be unusual in cases of this kind. It would mean that one side would be put in possession of a great deal of detail regarding the case of the other side, whereas a similar courtesy in regard to exchange of information would not be extended simultaneously by the ether, so that the one side would really be in a position of advantage over the other. Having regard to the undertaking which I have given on behalf of the Home Office, that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen will be adopted, I trust that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Clause will not press it. In any case, I suggest to the House, with great respect, that the point is now clear. I hope that all Members present are seized of the facts and arguments on both sides, and, in view of the length of the Bill, I should be obliged if the House could come to a decision.

In view of the statement of the Minister of Transport, which does meet this difficulty and this grievance, and as all that we want to ensure is that the motorist should obtain rather more details in such cases, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

I object to this Clause being withdrawn. I am not sympathetic towards motorists at all, and never have been. I should never have been allowed on the roads. Seeing, However, that the motorists are there, they ought to get fair play. The Lord Advocate will be able to tell us what the exact rule is in Scotland with regard to criminal charges, but my recollection is that the Crown supplies the defendant with the names of all its witnesses in order that he may have the opportunity of knowing the whole ground upon which the case is brought. The whole of our jurisprudence is in favour of the accused, but, when you come to deal with police practice, you very often find the opposite. It will be recollected that, at the time of the miner's strike, there was often an opinion, that there was a kind of weight against the accused, and that is undoubtedly so in regard to motorists in Scotland. It is shown by the way in whilch police traps are set, and so on.

This provision is very similar to what has been provided in the civil law. For a long time in Glasgow it was very difficult to discover the names and addresses of people injured by tramcars, but we succeeded after some years in getting the names of those witnesses, so that we could meet such cases. This is something of the same. It cannot do any harm in a bonâ fide case that this information should be supplied to the accused. A circular will be forgotten in a week. If you employ people to secure convictions or to detect offences, they become like sleuthhounds. Their business, when a charge is made, is to bring it home. We all know that magistrates like corroboration of police evidence. This will give the accused an opportunity as a matter of right, and not as a matter of grace from the Home Office, to get the necessary particulars. The penalties here are just as severe as for fairly considerable crime, and yet the people who commit them are not guilty of crimes in the sense that they have a criminal intention. It is more carelessness, and they ought to get fair play.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

We all want to get through this important and lengthy Bill in the shortest possible space, and, therefore, I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) to help us to that end, because we do not want to sit here for many unnecessary days at this time of the year. This Clause, which is of considerable importance, was discussed at considerable length in Committee. It is purely a matter of opinion whether the idea embodied in it is right or whether the idea embodied in the Bill is the correct one. It simply means that Part II shall continue in force only for three years unless Parliament otherwise determines. Part II contains the insurance Clauses, and we are making a tremendous innovation. It states that all motorists shall be insured against third party risks, and it bands over entirely the question of whether premiums should be issued or not to the sole judgment of the insurance companies, a most undesirable precedent, but I do not see any other way of getting it. It is doing a very excellent thing in enabling hospitals to recover up to £25 money expended on treating insured motorists, and it is making a very considerable experiment in insurance legislation. I do not think anyone will deny that we shall never go back upon that. We may have to alter the provisions, but we shall never go back to a state of things such as that exists at present in which many motorists who are poor men have not taken out policies of insurance and in which a man who has been run down has no chance of getting compensation out of the motorist, and I hope we shall never go back from the provision to enable hospitals to recover money that they have expended on treatment. There is no doubt that it is very difficult to forecast the result of this sort of legislation. I should like to read a dozen lines from a very excellent article in the "Times" of 27th May with reference to this insurance innovation.

"Legislation in this direction has already been enacted in certain countries abroad, but it is still in the experimental stage. So far as the effects may be judged, there has been a marked increase in the number and magnitude of third party claims, and serious difficulties in settlement have occurred. The results of compulsory insurance in the State of Massachusetts have been to fill the courts with contentious claims and to cause a very substantial increase in the cost of insurance. While it has been shown that well over 90 per cent. of motor owners other than cyclists in this country are insured or sufficiently secured financially, there is evidently a general consensus of opinion that compulsory provision of security is desirable and must be tried."

There are many things which will have to work themselves out in the next two or three years. First of all, are the insurance companies going to carry out their obligations and furnish insurance policies without asking unduly high premiums? The premiums are not controlled in any way by the Measure. It is entirely for the insurance companies. Is the machinery all right? Are the premiums to be higher or lower? We must come to the conclusion that in two or three years time Parliament will have to reconsider Part II of the Bill. Here comes the difference of opinion between the Minister and myself. He takes the view, which may be right though I think it is wrong, that it is far better to leave Part II in the Bill as permanent legislation and trust to the pressure of public opinion, when it is shown, that it needs revision, to bring pressure on the Government to pass an amending Bill. I was Minister of Transport for four or five years, and I came quite clearly to the opinion that it is very difficult, for a Minister who is not in the Cabinet to get more than a certain amount of legislation put through in the lifetime of a Parliament. Probably one big Bill in a Pariament is as much as he is able to put through, and the time of the Ministry of Transport in future, with a London Traffic Bill in the offing, will be fully occupied for the next four or five years.

My idea would be that Part II at the end of three or four years should be put automatically into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Minister regards that as a piece of undesirable legislation. He has only been in the House for two periods of 12 months each. The wisdom of Parliament for a very considerable time has regarded the Expiring Laws Continuance Act as a necessary piece of legislation, and, whether it is a good thing or not, it is there. If a Measure is in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act it is much more likely to be taken notice of by the Government of the day and put into permanent legislation in proper form than if it is not in that Act. Every Government has a Home Affairs Committee which every year goes over all the Bills contained in the Expiring Laws, eliminates those that ought to be dropped, and recommends those that ought to be made permanent legislation. These Committees are listened to in regard to matters which might be passed over as indeed they might be in this legislation. I do not see why the hon. gentleman cannot accept my new Clause. I am bound to put these views forward, because my desire is to help the Bill and to try and make these insurance Clauses work. They will, in due course, have to be remodelled and made permanent.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the encouragement which he gives to the House generally, including his own side, to consider this long Bill as expeditiously as possible and I am sure that my hon. Friends will do everything which will be conducive to a day of excellent temper and plenty of work in the House of Commons. The Clause which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now moved was, as he says, moved in the Standing Committee upstairs, when it was rejected by 20 votes to 12. I am bound to admit, as anybody would admit in connection with this part of the Bill, that there are elements of experiment in Part II. One is also bound to admit that possibly there may be imperfections in Part II, because it is a new chapter in legislation, and it is by no means a simple piece of legislation. Therefore, I should not be honest with the House if I did not admit at once that it is to some extent experimental.

The question arises: What are the practical advantages of putting in temporary legislation? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and rightly so, that we ought not necessarily to assume that the insurance companies are not going to play the game. In fact, insurance companies have given me an undertaking that as a direct result of this part of the Measure as it was introduced in the House of Lords premiums would not be increased, but they must be guided by actual financial results under the new conditions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that insurance companies are free to do what they like within certain limits. It is conceivable that grievances might arise, though when I held out the same possibility upstairs he chastised me very severely for casting the slightest doubt upon the bona fides of the insurance companies. It is true that this is a possibility. If the insurance companies were not keen on Part II—and I cannot say that they were enthusiastic—they have accepted it and have been very reasonable in their discussions with the Government. Though they have not welcomed it with open arms, so to speak, they have acquiesced in it in the public interest. If they did not want it, and if they wanted it to come to an end, the best thing would have been to have put a time limit upon it. I suggest that the point is against, and not for, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. As be says, and I agree with him, at this stage we have no reason to believe that the insurance companies will do other than work this part of the Bill genuinely.

I come to my personal views upon the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I said upstairs, and I still believe it, that, although the Expiring Laws Continuance Act may be an inevitable Parliamentary institution, it is not particularly or outstandingly a creditable institution to Parliament. It means that when Parliament passed tertian legislation it was not sure whether it was doing the right thing or not and it decided, therefore, to provide for a definite limitation of time. These limitations in time were put into certain Acts as concessions to the Opposition who did not want the Acts at all. The Government of the day said, "Will you swallow it if we put in a limitation in time?" Legislation really ought to be so framed as to be sound in itself and permanent. I agree that there are times when legislation is of a purely temporary character and therefore limited in time and you carry it on under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but to say that the Expiring Laws Continuance Act encourages Governments to polish up laws and amend them and put them in order is, with great respect, a fallacy.

The Motor Car Act was passed for a three years period in 1903, when motor traffic, as everybody knows, was in a very experimental stage. The Motor Car Act, 1903, is still upon the Statute Book—27 years later. Why Because whenever a Government, irrespective of party, were faced with the urgent need which we have known for many years, for amending the laws relating to road traffic, it was an alternative to providing Parliamentary time and an easier course to adopt to say: "Put it off for another year by putting it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill." Any Cabinet, whatever its party, faced with the necessity of bringing in a Bill of this kind, which, I think, is a very useful Bill, quite apart from its Part I provisions, would have an easy alternative by saying: "Well, let it stand over for another year, and put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill." Everyone knows that in nine cases out of ten they would submit to the temptation to put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If this part of the Bill works out badly and difficulty arises, it is best for it to be permanent and so force the Government to face the matter, and not fall back on the convenient but miserable expedient of holding it over for another year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I trust that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will now be converted by my second effort to persuade him on this point and that his suggestion will not be pressed. I really think that the most effective method on the whole will be to leave the provisions as they are.

I am afraid that the persuasiveness of the Minister of Transport, whatever effect it may have had upon my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member of Christchurch (Colonel Ashley), has not had the effect of converting me to his views. He quoted the case with the Motor Car Act, 1903, which was a very large, wide and embracing Act. This particular part of this Bill only deals with insurance. He knows well that time has not been found up to the present to remedy the defects which have gradually arisen. Only a small Measure would be necessary to amend what might be the defects found after two or three years' working of this part of the Bill. One does not like the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but under that Act you have an opportunity of debating the several Acts and can find out details which are wrong and how they can be remedied. You can obtain different suggestions from all parts of the House which make it easy for a Minister to remedy defects by introducing a short Bill. The Expiring Laws Continuance Act has many advantages in that way. Part II of this Bill, frankly, is an experiment. Other countries have tried it and have found considerable difficulties, and I think that we shall be faced with the same kind of difficulties.

There may be an increase in premiums. The whole thing is a compromise at the present time. The Minister knows of the difficulties of dealing with hospitals. Clause 36 is a compromise. The produc- tion of a certificate and the increase in the numbers of disputed claims and a vast amount of other details can only be decided by practice, and we suggest that at the end of three years' working it would be time to look at this part of the Measure to see whether it had worked well. Then, if it had not worked well, far greater pressure could be brought to bear on the Government to amend a small part of it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. By this means a small Ministry like the Ministry of Transport would be able to introduce a small Bill to amend the portion concerned. I support my right hon. and gallant Friend in asking for a limitation of time for this part of the Bill.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new Clause for the purpose of being able to get on with business?

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The purpose of the new Clause is to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of those large undertakings which have a fleet of not less than 100 vehicles. There is an elaborate system whereby such large undertakings are able to protect themselves and, incidentally, protect the public, and satisfy the licensing commissioners that they are not men of straw who operate these undertakings, and that in the case of an accident they have funds behind them to meet any damage that may be caused by such accident. We want to ask the Minister whether he would consider under Part II that the existing arrangement which has worked now for 25 years to the general satisfaction of the public and the undertakings that operate those services, might be allowed to continue. I am well aware that under Part II which brings about these sweeping changes it is objectionable from the Government's point of view to make any exceptions. These omnibus companies are more than willing to fall into line with anything that would improve the transport arrangements of the country. Therefore, if the Minister could give us an assurance that we should have the assistance of the Government in bringing into line the normal organisation for the insurance of these undertakings, and we can do so without having to lock up a great deal of capital, we shall be willing to withdraw this new Clause.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this new Clause, because it would put the Traffic Commissioners in considerable difficulty in making themselves reasonably sure as to the satisfactory character of the financial provision that such companies had made. There is provision that if a large company deposits £15,000 in the High Court that will be satisfactory. I think the House will readily see that if the Commissioners were to be satisfied as to the financial provision made they could not possibly keep a continuous oversight. It is conceivable that a company with 100 vehicles might be on the verge of bankruptcy, for one reason or another, without the Commissioners being aware of it. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member and those for whom he is speaking that a better solution would be—I appreciate that an individual company even a large company might not want to lock up £15,000 of capital—if a group of companies, with friendly relations, would get together and form an insurance organisation of their own, and register it in the ordinary way. In that case, instead of a large company being required to put up £15,000 the new organisation as a whole could do so, and come within the provisions of the Act. I should be perfectly willing in the course of administration not to be unhelpful in cases of that kind. I trust that that assurance may be satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member.

I thank the Minister very much for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I understand that the Minister is-going to accept this new Clause. It gives local authorities power to remove obstructions which have been put up by private individuals on the highways and road: side wastes. It often happens that the process of getting rid of such obstructions is very tedious. I cannot see why people should be permitted to put up obstructions on the highway.

I think this is a wise and reasonable proposition, and I shall be glad to accept it.

Will this apply to an advertisement on the side of the road?

Yes, if it is an obstruction.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "Motor", and to insert instead thereof the words "Mechanically Propelled".

12 n.

When the Bill was in Committee the Chairman said that if the word "Motor" remained in this part of the Bill there would be no opportunity of dealing subsequently with a tramcar or any other traffic on the road which was not a motor vehicle. An Amendment which you have not selected, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Boroughs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore)—in line 7, to leave out the words "motor vehicles" and to insert instead thereof the words "traffic on roads" goes very much wider than my Amendment.

In considering the matter again, I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is not in Order, and that the other Amendments which deal with this matter I have not selected.

While not in any way questioning your decision not to call my Amendment, I would point out that it was merely a preliminary Amendment of a group of three Amendments and that the subsequent Amendment is on Clause 29. If the scope of the Bill is sufficiently widened will it admit the 'subsequent Amendment to Clause 29?

That is so. It would not be in Order to alter the words in the heading of the Clause.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Sir. H. O'Neill) gave a decision upon this matter.

I have nothing to do with a decision given by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

As I understand it, in any subsequent consideration of this Bill there will be no opportunity whereby we can alter the Bill so as to deal with pedestrians, tramcars, or trolley vehicles which may be dangerous on the road. I have certain new Clauses down which deal with these specific points which were ruled out in Committee, and have been ruled out on Report. I assume now that under your Ruling it is impossible to deal with any of these questions at any part of the Bill.

I have not selected those Amendments.

I beg to move in page 1, line J.4, after the word "that" to insert the words "(a) the provisions of".

There was discussion in Committee as to whether certain provisions in Part I should not be made applicable to trolley vehicles and tramcars. I do not say that I entirely satisfied the Committee, but I think that I substantially satisfied them that tramcars were not appropriate vehicles to be subject to this part of the Bill, because they are working under fixed traffic conditions. I was convinced, as the discussion went on, that certain provisions under Part I. of the Bill should be applicable to trolley vehicles, which although not quite so mobile as motor cars nevertheless do possess considerable mobility. Therefore I have brought forward these Amendments to carry out the undertaking I gave during the Committee stage. The provisions which it is proposed to make applicable to trolley vehicles are those relating to the licensing of drivers, the disqualification for offences, endorsement for conviction; the Clause relating to careless and dangerous driving and being drunk in charge, and the Clause relating to inquiry into accidents. That I think fully carries out the undertaking I gave.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "or trolley vehicles."

Do I understand that a number of provisions are to be applicable to trolley vehicles but not to tramcars? Is the provision relating to dangerous driving not to be applicable to tramcars? Perhaps the Minister of Transport will explain why dangerous driving of a, tramcar is not to be dealt with, while a man who drives a trolley vehicle is to be subject to these rather severe penalties. That is the only point that occurs to me.

I admit that there is a shadowy verge in the case of a tramcar—

Not disreputable, I hope?

No. The tramcar is a very respectable institution. They have to work on fixed rails and the elements of driving are different from those of driving a trolley vehicle or a motor car, which can swing from one part of the road to another. It would be very difficult to frame a Clause dealing with trolley vehicles and motor cars which would not be nonsense when dealing with tramcars travelling under such different conditions. The driving of a tramcar is a different operation to that of driving a motor car. The second point is that tramway servants, while not being so disciplined as railway servants, are nevertheless somewhat sternly disciplined so far as driving is concerned. They work under Statute and are subject to regulations, in which the Minister of Transport has a considerable hand. We can safeguard the public interest by regulations. It is for those reasons that I did not see my way to bring them within the Bill. Trolley vehicles are in a different category.

I recognise the difference between a trolley vehicle and a tramcar, and I think the Minister of Transport has more than carried out every promise he gave upstairs to make this Bill applicable to the trolley vehicle. I understand that there is power by regulation to deal with tramcars, which can only run under Statute, but the point is that it does not seem to be recognised that a tramcar can be one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road, especially in one-way streets. There are instances where the tramcar is superior to the one-way rule, and it is most disconcerting suddenly to find a tramcar pro- ceeding in the opposite direction to all other forms of traffic. A tramcar is exceedingly heavy and cumbersome. That is what makes it a very respectable vehicle, but it is most annoying when the driver suddenly puts on his brakes and, having sand on the rails, brings up the tramcar in a distance of half its own length. It means that the wretched person behind, having no indication that the brakes are going to be put on, finds himself telescoped in the back of the respectable tramcar. There should be some device by which drivers of tramcars can indicate when they are going to apply their brakes. With compulsory insurance in the Bill and imprisonment looming large, I am afraid that the tramcar will lose its reputation for respectability. The Minister of Transport, as the godfather of the tramcar, should see that it maintains its reputation for respectability. I hope tram drivers will be made subject to greater restrictions. They are exceedingly well trained men, but a trolley driver will operate in many cases under just the same licence as the driver of a tram. The driver of a tram under a local authority may be the driver of a trolley vehicle the next day. That matter will have to be dealt with by regulation.

I am rather surprised at the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn). His proposal would add to the dangers of the streets rather than decrease them. At the present time the tramcar is limited in speed, it has to make compulsory stops at cross roads, and observe many other things which do not apply to other vehicles. Any man who is driving behind a tramcar and cannot stop when the tram stops ought to be taken off the road.

I thoroughly disagree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon - Tyne West (Mr. Palin). He may not be aware that tramcars have very powerful magnetic brakes which motor cars have not, and if a motor car is driving behind a tramcar at the same speed the tramcar can pull up in much shorter space than the motor car. Personally I think the tramcar very dangerous on the road and I am sorry it is not included in this Bill. Indeed, I think the title of the Bill ought to be changed. It should be called a Motor Traffic Bill instead of a Road Traffic Bill, because we have not been able to get tramcars included in it, or pedestrians or horse-drawn vehicle drivers. The only thing which is included in the Bill is a motor car. Tramcars are very dangerous in a narrow road; very often they take up the whole width of the road. Very often when one is going to pass on the left hand side, and the driver of the tramcar is not looking to see what is coming along, the motor car gets squashed against the kerb. I think the Minister of Transport should reconsider this point and include tramcars in the Bill as well as other vehicles.

From the remarks of the last speaker it is clear that the tram, when it stops suddenly, constitutes a danger to those who are behind, because the tram is so constructed that it can be pulled up within its own length. It will be admitted by everyone that every vehicle on the road ought to be able to stop, in case of emergency, in as short a space as possible. That obviously applies to tramcars. If the fact that the tramcar is able to stop suddenly in an emergency means that drivers of vehicles behind it are going to run into it, it is clear that those who are behind the tramcar are a public danger, inasmuch as, while using the public roads, they are not able to act suddenly and efficiently when an emergency arises. Every driver on the road ought to be compelled to be prepared to act suddenly and efficiently when emergency arises. An hon. Member interrupts to say that the motor driver cannot do it. Then the motor driver ought not to be on the road; he ought to be under the tramcar.

Let us look at this matter from the point of view that humanity has not to adjust itself to the motor car, but that those who are developing the use of motor vehicles must be compelled to recognise that man is by nature a pedestrian, that when emergencies arise the public must be safeguarded, and that whatever difficulty may be involved, so far as the motor driver is concerned, he must be compelled to face it. Let us take into consideration, first of all, not the comfort or convenience of the driver of any vehicle, but the safety of the public. Every vehicle on the road ought to be prepared to act efficiently in cases of emergency, and if it cannot do so the severest measures ought to be taken against it.

I have found in the Ministry of Transport a sympathy towards the tramcar system of the country. The Minister this morning has confirmed what I have found in my negotiations with the Ministry of Transport during some years. The largest town in my constituency has what, I am afraid, is one of the most appalling tramway systems of the country. Whenever we approached the Ministry of Transport we found that it had extreme sympathy with this system of locomotion—a sympathy which it did not appear to hold for the motorist. The trouble is not caused by the tramcar driver, who is one of the most efficient drivers in the country. The position is that we have trams running along roads that were never intended for them. They are a great danger to the public, as well as to motorists. In the particular town that I have mentioned the tramcars can hold up public traffic and the police do not seem to be able to say anything. As a matter of fact I do not know whether the police are not almost in league with the Minister in their sympathy with this kind of vehicular traffic. I realise that the tramcars in some streets in the particular area that I have in mind are at this moment a very great public danger. I am rather sorry that the present Minister of Transport is keeping up the reputation of his Department in being specially fascinated by this old and decrepit mode of locomotion.

In my view every form of danger on the roads should be dealt with very severely. It is quite idle for the Minister to say that tramcars cannot be a danger. Often they are driven into loops, off a single track, without any warning being given to oncoming traffic, and thereby are a very serious danger. On several occasions I have seen motor cars compelled to pull up in such a way as to be a positive danger. What happens on the main road to Hendon, where there are tramcars? It is the practice there of the trams to turn at the terminus and to back suddenly on to the other track by points, and by that means cause——

The whole of this discussion is really out of Order. The word "tramcars" already stands part of the Bill. The Amendment only deals with trolley vehicles.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words "Part of this."

We are not asking the Minister to explain every Amendment that he moves, but on the general principle may we take it from him that if there is anything of real substance in any of these Amendments, he will tell us what they mean, as it is very difficult to follow the purport of several pages of Amendments.

I agree. This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(a) where any regulations made after the passing of this Act contain provisions varying the requirements as regards the construction or weight of any class or description of vehicles provision shall be made by the regulations for exempting for such period (not being less than five years) as may be specified therein from the provisions aforesaid any vehicle of that class or description registered under the Roads Act, 1920, before the expiration of one year from the making of the regulations; and."

The proviso in the Clause was inserted in another place in its present form. The new form which it is proposed to substitute has been agreed with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and is a compromise with the interests concerned

I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:

"and shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of the first offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

This is an Amendment of substantial importance. If my recollection is right, it was defeated in the Standing Committee by only one vote. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 112 they will find that the penalties for offences under the Bill are heavy, in fact almost savage. They are, for a first offence £20, and for a second or subsequent offence £50 or three months' imprisonment.

Hear, hear!

I think that even the hon. Member who says "hear, hear" will agree that these penalties are very severe and therefore we ought to be especially careful to see that the general penalty only applies to really serious cases. Without the insertion of the words proposed by the Amendment under Clause 3—which gives the Minister power, without reference to Parliament, to make regulations—anybody breaking those regulations will be liable to penalties of £20 on the first offence, and on the second offence £50 or three months imprisonment. I can understand the House laying down that such and such a thing is an offence and saying "As we consider it of importance we give the magistrates power to impose serious penalties." But in Clause 3 we hand over the power of making these regulations entirely to the Minister. Clause 30 specifies the matters about which he may make regulations. They include the width, height and length of motor vehicles, the consumption of smoke, excessive noise, the particulars to be marked on motor vehicles and trailers, the towing of vehicles by motor vehicles and things of that kind.

I admit that, obviously, we have to leave these things to the Minister. They cannot all be dealt with directly in the Bill and the Minister is the right and proper person to make these regulations but if the House parts with its right to make such regulations, we ought to be very chary about it and we ought to look very carefully into the penalties which it is proposed to attach to matters which are to be decided on the ipse dixit of the Minister and no one else. For instance, I submit that for the comparatively small offence of having a coupling wrong on the stay which holds the drawing vehicle to the towed vehicle a £5 fine would be ample for a first offence and a £10 fine sufficient for a second offence. To give magistrates the power to impose the penalties set out in Clause 112 is putting the matter much too high. I think this is one case in which we ought to take these penalties out of the general provision of Clause 112 and put them down in black and white in this Clause.

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment has said, a similar Amendment was moved in Committee. There was a long and comprehensive discussion upon it and it is true that it was defeated only by one vote. Clause 112 provides for maximum penalties for offences under this Measure of £20 on a first conviction and £50 or imprisonment for three months on any subsequent convictions. Those I repeat are maximum penalties and nobody, I think, will challenge the desirability of fixing such maximum penalties, having regard to what has been termed the revolution which this Measure works in regard to motor transport. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the regulations to be made by the Minister and he seemed to think that those regulations would be made by permanent officials. After all it is the Minister who makes them and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. It is true that many of the points specified in Clause 30, which will be covered by the regulations, are comparatively small points and I have no doubt that a large number of minor offences will arise under the regulations. But it will be for the courts to decide these cases and I have no doubt that the courts will distinguish between the small offences and the serious offences. At any rate I think it is proper to leave such a matter to the discretion of the courts.

On the other hand, it is clear from the nature of the regulations that serious offences also may arise and it is certainly desirable that the court should have the power to impose much heavier penalties than those proposed in the Amendment. For instance, if a heavy vehicle is being used upon the roads with inefficient brakes and is calculated to endanger the lives of individuals and to be a danger to the community generally, surely a maximum penalty of £20 on a first conviction is not excessive, especially when we recall that it is within the discretion of the court upon the evidence before it to decide as to the seriousness or otherwise of the particular case, and to fix a penalty within the maximum specified in the Bill. There may also be the case of a heavily laden vehicle with defective solid tyres which is causing immense damage. Does my right hon. and gallant Friend suggest that for such an offence a fine not exceeding £5 is sufficient?

Is there anything in this Clause which makes it an offence to imperil life? The only offence in the Clause is using a vehicle upon the road which does not conform to the regulations.

If the hon. Member turns to Clause 30 he will there see the nature of the regulations and the matters which will be governed by those regulations. I suggest to the House that if those regulations were contravened in either of the ways which I have suggested it is absurd to suggest that a fine not exceeding £5 on a first offence and not exceeding £10 on a subsequent offence, would be sufficient to meet the case. As this matter was fully discussed in Committee I hope, even though a similar Amendment was then defeated by only one vote, that the House will now support the Minister.

The Under-Secretary has addressed a most extraordinary argument to the House. He says that some of these offences will be trivial offences for which the smallest possible penalty will be required but that some of the offences may be very serious offences for which a very heavy fine, and, in certain cases, a term of imprisonment, will not be an excessive penalty. Therefore, says the Under Secretary in effect, let us lump together the whole of the penalties and say that the court shall have discretion either to impose a very heavy penalty including it may be imprisonment, or to impose the smallest possible penalty. I do not believe that in any other Act of Parliament you will find a general discretion of this kind given to the courts. Let the Under-Secretary observe what follows from his argument. We pass an Act of Parliament dealing with a number of criminal offences. Some of them are properly punishable by penal servitude, and for some of them a very small penalty is sufficient. According to the Under-Secretary, the proper course to adopt in a case like that is to say that the penalty to be inflicted under the Statute shall not be greater than seven years' penal servitude and to put an omnibus and elastic penalty for every offence, be it great or small.

I have always understood that the object of putting into a Clause the nature of a penalty to be imposed was to give some indication to the courts of what Parliament considers a proper penalty for a particular offence, and where you get the Minister responsible for the Bill stating that in his view for certain offences a very small penalty is required, whereas for other offences a very large penalty is required, I should have thought he would have drawn the conclusion that he should follow the normal Parliamentary procedure and lay down a large penalty for the grave offence and a smaller penalty for the smaller offence, which is what the Amendment proposes. Unless the hon. Gentleman can produce a better argument than, that which he has addressed to the House, and show us why we should not have differentiation of penalties for different offences, I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will carry his Amendment to a division.

The argument of the Under-Secretary is really a very amazing argument. He said that because a vehicle may be faulty and may imperil life, you should have a serious penalty, amounting to £50 or imprisonment. But if the offence were one that imperilled life, clearly the charge would not be brought under this Clause at all, because it is too serious an offence. The whole offence under this Clause is one of using a vehicle which does not comply with the regulations applicable to the class or description of vehicles to which it belongs. If a vehicle has faulty brakes, it is a different offence, and should not be classed under this Clause at all. The offence under this Clause should have a light penalty attached to it, and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a division and that it will be carried.

I should like to support the remarks of the last speaker. I do not see any reason why you should lay down a heavy penalty for every offence. If a vehicle goes on the road with brakes that do not work, the driver ought not to be prosecuted under this Clause at all, but he should be prosecuted for driving to the danger of the public, as he would be doing if he went on the road without proper brakes. If you are going to have a maximum penalty of £20, with possible imprisonment, what is the indication to the courts? It is that every offence committed under this Clause should be treated, not as a trivial offence, but as a very serious offence indeed, and they will have an opportunity of imposing a very high fine for all sorts of trivialities. A man's lamp might go out, he might have a dirty number plate, he might have his licence upside down on the side of his car, and for any of these small offences he might be fined a very heavy amount. There is no reason why you should not differentiate between different offences and why you should have a sort of sweeping penalty for all offences. It may be an easy way of doing it. You might say, "The maximum will be so and so, and we will leave everything to the courts to decide." I do not see any reason at all why you should do that, and why you should not take the trouble to lay down certain penalties for certain offences, according to the gravity of the offence.

Obviously, there are regulations provided for in Clause 30, the breach of which might be a slight matter, but, on the other hand, there are regulations which will be made by the Minister under that Clause and under the Clause now under consideration which are, I think, calculated to ensure safety upon the roads, and anyone who contravenes those regulations does so deliberately, because in most of these cases it is a deliberate contravention. Take, for instance, Sub-section (1, g) of Clause 30, dealing with

"the number and nature of brakes, and for securing that brakes, silencers, and Steering gear shall be efficient and kept in proper working order."

What more serious offence can there be than that?

As was pointed out by the previous speaker, those offences should be taken as driving to the danger of the public.

I think there is a particular danger of the House overlooking this fact, that we are aiming at the one who deals with the vehicle in the first instance when it goes on the road in a condition in which it ought not to go on the road. I am satisfied that the Minister in this Bill has in view "Safety first," but I am certain that it will lead the community to a very different conclusion from that which "Safety First" did in another connection. I hope nothing will be done to water down these penalties. If a man deliberately and repeatedly contravenes these regulations, even the penalties included in the Clause at the end of the Bill are not too severe, and to suggest penalties of £5 for a first offence of a serious character and £10 when the offence may have been repeated time after time is to mean that the public will not realise that the Act is to be administered drastically.

The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) suggested that using bad brakes and other things described in the Bill might come under the definition of "dangerous driving," but I would point out that in many concerns drivers fear that they may lose their job if they are too particular about the condition of their vehicles, repairs, and so on, and how can you bring the owner of a vehicle who has refused to put it into proper repair into court for dangerous driving when he has not driven it at all, but has hired a driver to drive it? It seems to me that that argument should support the Minister on this occasion.

There is a great deal of force attached to the argument that because Clause an is divided into different parts some important and some not, it would be a good thing that a particular offence should have a particular penalty attached to it, but I am in some difficulty in supporting the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend for this reason, that I believe it would be detrimental to the interests of the Bill to reduce the penalties. We are doing away with the speed limit and matters of that kind, and it is essential that only road-worthy vehicles should be on the road. If a man is killed by a motor, there is no satisfaction to the relatives at the inquest that the driver could be proceeded against for dangerous driving, but, if the vehicle is proved at the inquest to have inefficient brakes, which ought to have been looked after prior to the car going out on the road and the accident avoided, he could be dealt with under this Section. The British motor manufacturing industry is in great difficulty, because an enormous number of second-hand vehicles are being sold at £10 and upwards. Some of these cars ought not to be allowed to run on the roads at all, and, if we are aiming to clear up the roads and have efficient vehicles operating, there ought in this Measure to be a provision whereby it will be a severe penalty to take on to the road a vehicle which is not only a danger to its driver but to everybody else who uses the road. I think that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that if you have penalties, they should be in relationship to the offence; but you could be fined £25 for not doing the registration lettering on a trailer in the right way, and that is excessive compared with other irregularities. According to the arguments of the Under-Secretary, you might say in an Act of Parliament that, everybody should be sentenced to death for any offence, and then leave it to the court to send the man to prison for a week. In past days in Spain nearly everybody was sentenced to bastinado, for trivial offences, but, in effect, it became merely a smack on the palm of the hand. Today, we ought to put in an Act of Parliament what should be the penalty for a particular offence. I cannot, however, support my right hon. Friend, because it is essential to maintain heavy penalties if we are doing away with the speed limit.

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) has read this Clause at all. He talks about second-hand motor-cars, but the Clause deals with regulations and the construction of cars. It has nothing to do with second-hand cars. The Minister will snake various regulations with regard to the construction of cars, and, when he makes new regulations or alters existing regulations in some small or technical matter, very minor offences are set up, which have nothing to do with having faulty brakes and things of that kind at all.

I want to repeat what I said on this Clause in Committee. I am not satisfied with the statement made by the right hon. and gallent Member who moved this Amendment when he pointed out that the coupling of a trailer is only a trivial thing. I have seen a trailer leave the motor and go into a shop window. That has not been because the vehicle has not had proper brakes——

It is individual enterprise.

Yes; they have not had enough people to examine the vehicles before they go out. I have known instances of men who have been driving motors and trailers reporting defects which they have discovered and finding, when they have gone out next morning, that the defects remained. They have reported them again, but they have been told that it was not their business; their business was to get on the motor and get the wheels running. They get the wheels running, and, when the load is on, they perhaps disagree and separate, to the danger of the passengers and to everybody else. This is not the kind of thing that should be regarded as trivial and dealt with in a trivial way. It is time the Minister did something to stop this kind of thing happening.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that in any case where the holder of a licence has by inadvertence failed to obtain a renewal thereof from the licensing authority within one month after the date on which it ceased to be in force the penalty shall not exceed five pounds in the case of the first offence nor ten pounds in the case of a subsequent offence."

This Amendment provides that where a man has failed by inadvertence to take out his driving licence, the penalty shall be reduced the first month from the full penalty, to £5 for the first offence and £10 for a subsequent offence. It may, perhaps, be said that this Amendment is on very much the same lines as the last Amendment, but there is a material difference, because where it is possible to say that the last Amendment applied to matters which might, indeed, be serious, this Amendment applies to something which is a very minor offence, and can in no way be serious. After all, many of us who drive motor cars forget for a day or two to take out a driver's licence. I have no doubt that that is done by a great many Members on all sides of the House, and I do think that to provide a penalty, such as we have got in the penalty Clause of this Bill, for a mere inadvertence of that type, is something that this House should not enact.

Again, if we look at Subsection (1) of this Clause, we find that the driver's employer is also made liable to this very heavy penalty if he omits to see that the driver has not taken out his licence. There are a great many companies in this country employing many hundreds of drivers, and it is rather an imposition to put upon them the duty of seeing that through inadvertence a man does not forget to take out his licence. The arguments which were adduced on the Government side in the last Amendment do not apply in this particular case, because this offence cannot be a major offence, but must be a minor offence. I agree that there were certain things in the last Amendment which, if you did not carry them out, would endanger life. In such cases a heavy penalty is deserved, but no one can say that you endanger life if you omit to take out a driver's licence. There was an Amendment of the same type moved in Committee, but it went rather further, and the Government's answer then was that we were opening the door to allowing somebody to forget to take out his licence for a very long time. We have not put down the same Amendment on Report. All that our Amendment does is to give a man a month's grace, and during that month he is liable to the lower penalty. If, on the other hand, it is longer than a month, he comes under the ordinary penalty Clause. I think that the House will agree that this Amendment is a reasonable one.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that, as happened in Committee, this Amendment may not be persisted in. I suggest that we ought not to introduce a new kind of legislation in favour of any class—in this case the motorist class. I am unaware of any principle of legislation under which a man may say, as a matter of positive law, "By inadvertence I have committed a criminal offence"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a quasi-criminal offence—"and, therefore, I am entitled under the Statute to be punished at a lower rate." Now inadvertence is, of course, a matter for the court to take into consideration. If a man shows, as he generally manages to show, to the satisfaction of the Court that he acted inadvertently, he gets off with a light punishment. I would like to add that this part of the Clause is reproducing the exact wording, or, in effect, the wording of the Motor Car Act, 1903, which has been in operation for 27 years without any complaint at all on this score, and that exactly the same penalty is provided for in that Act. I would add this further word, that in this Clause we are putting in a concession at the end that if a man is required by a police officer to show his licence, within five days he can bring it along to the police station, and no proceedings will be brought against him. In view of that, I would suggest to the mover of the Amendment that sufficient regard has been had to the position of motorists.

My reason for supporting this Amendment is that the Bill does not differentiate in any way between an offence committed through inadvertence and an offence committed deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it would be bad law to differentiate. My reply to that is the old saying, "The law is a hass". An offence committed through inadvertence is surely less serious than one committed deliberately, but the Clause does not distinguish between the man who has obviously forgotten for a few days to renew his licence and the man who deliberately drives a motor car without having taken out a licence at all. I feel there is a case for a lower scale of penalties where it is an oversight. In the case of a driving licence no notice is issued to the holder that the licence is about to expire and I think I am right in saying that is the only case where no notice is issued. If one is a holder of a dog licence, in the majority of cases a notice is received—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. I have a dog and have received notices to the effect that my licence has expired; and certainly notices are received by the holders of gun licences or game licences, and why should not motorists be placed on the same footing? It is possible for anybody to forget to renew a licence for a few days, and it is absurd that such an offender should be placed on the same footing as a man who deliberately drives a motor car without a licence and chances it.

I feel some difficulty over this Amendment, as I did over the last one, as regarding the weakening of the penalties imposed by this Bill. I cannot forget that we making a tremendous change in the law which governs the driving of motor cars. We are abolishing the speed limit, and in view of that we have to be very careful to see that the penalties for a breach of the regulations are adequate. I was not able to support the last Amendment and I cannot support this one. First of all, I do not know what inadvertence is. I cannot see how any court can interpret the word "inadvertence," If a man has just made an honest mistake I think we can trust the magistrates to deal with his case. I object to defining too clearly in an Act of Parliament the duty of a magistrate. It is for Parliament to lay down the general principle and for the court to apply that principle. We must not forget that the only real hold we have over the motorist is through his licence. Motorists are getting immense advantages under this Bill. In Committee I sup ported the removal of the speed limit. We cannot overlook the fact that a great many lives are being lost on the roads, and we must be careful to see that the penalties are not made too light. I am quite prepared to trust a magistrate or any court applying this Clause to deal in a reasonable manner with hard eases.

I wish to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. With all respect to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), his speech was entirely irrelevant, because his appeal to us to consider the great change that has taken place in traffic conditions and the loss of life on the roads had no application to this Amendment. Nobody can suggest that the risk of loss of life is increased because a person has inadvertently forgotten to renew his driving licence for a month. I also wish to say a word in emphasis of the undesirability of creating a large number of new offences, as is done under this Bill, and then laying down an omnibus penalty to apply to all of them, whether they be serious or trivial. That is slovenly legislation. Some attempt ought to be made to adjust the penalty to the particular offence. There should be no difficulty in doing that. There is no reason why we should not, as we go through these Clauses, give some indication of the penalty which we consider would be appropriate, and not leave everything entirely to the discretion of benches of magistrates. There are good benches, whose discretion can be safely relied upon, but there are others who are not renowned for their judicial temperament, and I would prefer that some indication should be given of the degree of seriousness which Parliament desires to attach to each particular offence.

If this Amendment goes to a division I shall certainly vote against it, if only for the reason given by the Solicitor-General, that it introduces the word "inadvertence" into legislation, where, as he has told us, it is at present unknown. How are we going to interpret that word? What evidence can be adduced by a person to show that he has acted through inadvertence? If he makes a statement, how can it be rebutted by any other evidence? If the Amendment were passed at all it ought to take the form of providing that during the first month a person should be liable to a less penalty. That would be an understandable Amendment; but in its present form the Amendment certainly ought not to be accepted. If the Bill had set out to make two classes of offences and to allot different penalties to those offences, offences of the first degree and offences of the second degree, there might, perhaps, be something to be said for an Amendment here. I think the matter is one of no great importance, because discrimination will necessarily he made by the court. There is always a temptation to Parliament to try cases itself. Hon. Members, placing themselves in the position of benches of magistrates, say, "This man, who has evidently acted carelessly, and has allowed a fortnight to pass before renewing his licence, ought not, of course, to be subjected to so severe a penalty as a man who has allowed six months or a year to elapse.' Probably the court would take that into account. It is a matter for the magistrates. Legislation is one thing and judicial interpretation and application is clearly another. It is not our business to make fine distinctions; we can safely leave them to the courts.

I want to make an appeal to the Committee. We have a large number of Amendments to deal with and I hope we shall come to a conclusion on this point.

Could it not be arranged that the licence might be taken out on any day during the year? In that case, we could come to some arrangement by which the licence should expire on the 31st of December, and then there would be no difficulty Whatever.

There would be a very great difficulty in that case, because it would concentrate the issuing of licences on to one period, and I am afraid that administratively that would be impossible.

This is only a matter of paying 5s. Fancy fining a man £20, then £50, with the possibility of three months' imprisonment, for not taking out a thing worth 5s. I have forgotten my own licence time and time again, and I am a perfectly decent citizen. Why should I be subjected to such heavy penalties as these which are making motor legislation absurd. I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

Would it not be possible to give the holder of the licence notice that his licence has run out?

I think that would be possible, because records are kept as to when the licence runs out, and some form of notice might be posted. That would involve a good deal of additional work and cost, and I do not see why that cost should be incurred purely for the convenience of people who are unbusinesslike. I do not want to see these people get sloppy, because the taking out of motor licences is something which they ought to remember.

May I point out that notices of this kind are sent out in Devonshire and also in Berkshire?

Mr. Herbert Morrison.

May I point out to you, Sir, that you have passed over my Amendment to insert in page 5, line 15, the words

"the passing of an oral examination on the code of the road as laid down by the Minister and the."

That is an Amendment of great substance and raises a very important matter.

The right of selection rests with Mr. Speaker, and it is not permissible to debate Amendments not selected.

I proposed an Amendment with the same object in view during the Committee stage, and I was beaten. I do not want to waste time by repeating my argument, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) and myself put this Amendment down as a compromise, and I feel that the Ruling of the Chair is preventing a very important question being discussed.

I cannot allow a discussion on Amendments which Mr. Speaker has not selected. It would be most improper and a gross abuse of the Rules of the House to do so.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, after the word "person," to insert the words

"or by his duly authorised representative."

This Clause requires the licensee to produce his licence in person at the police station. Under the present law the driver or the owner is allowed to send someone to represent him. In the discussion on this point which took place on the Committee stage the learned Solicitor-General told us that he did not suppose the police would turn up this Section and prosecute, but surely he does not suggest that the police are not going to carry out the Statute. I think the existing practice ought to be continued. Surely it ought to be sufficient for the police to be satisfied that the person producing the licence is the authorised representative of the holder of the licence. This is a comparatively small matter, but it is the practice at the present time, and if you are going to alter that practice the Statute should be made perfectly clear.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I appeal to the Minister not to look at this matter from a party point of view. What we are trying to do in connection with this Bill is to produce a good Bill, which shall be efficient and satisfactory to everyone concerned. In this Amendment we merely ask for a small concession, which I think would be very much appreciated. After all, it has been laid down that a person who has forgotten his licence and desires to produce it may take it himself to a police station, and, if there were any question of identity, that would be all right, but that is not the point. This Amendment merely suggests that, instead of having to go himself to the police station with his licence, he should be able to send somebody else whom he has duly authorised to represent him. If there were any real reason against it as far as identification is concerned, I could understand it, but, if there is not, I hope that the Government will be able to accept this very small Amendment.

Under this Clause it is the duty of every driver to carry a licence, and it is clear that the legal responsibility is upon him to produce that licence when he is asked to do so. We have already given the motorist a great concession in providing that, if he produces his licence within five days, no prosecution will take place. In this case it is a question of identification——

No.

Yes; it is very desirable that, when a driver who is without his licence is called upon to produce it he should produce it in person, and, if he has to take it to a police station, the police should surely be in a position to identify the holder, when we remember the increasing amount of crime as the result of the use of stolen cars, and the fact that the police often have the greatest possible difficulty in tracing stolen cars and deciding who is the culprit. If we accept this Amendment, we shall considerably hamper the police in the execution of a duty which everyone, irrespective of party, desires to be carried out.

As I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite to challenge me on the question of identification, I would point out that paragraph (i) of Clause 30 provides that the Minister shall be enabled and entitled to make regulations for facilitating the identification of holders of licences. As I have said, the holder of a licence should, according to the law, produce his licence, and the police should be able to identify him as the holder of the licence. The Minister of Transport will no doubt ensure that the licence shall at any rate bear the signature of the holder, and, when the person who purports to be the holder of the licence appears, he might be asked to sign his name in order that the police may see whether his signature corresponds with that on the licence.

I am not opposing this Amendment for the sake of opposing it, but am seeking to ensure that the police shall be in a position to identify the holder of the licence. I cannot think that the Clause as it stands will involve any real hardship upon the motorist. If, as was said by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, there is some practice among the police of satisfying themselves that the person who produces the licence is the authorised representative of the holder, it will no doubt continue, but that is a very different proposition from laying it down in the Statute, and thus facilitating and encouraging those who may have criminal intent.

The Minister of Transport or the Home Secretary ought, consistently with seeing that everyone has a licence, to make it as easy as possible. When you make what is called a concession, you do not want to make it as disagreeable as possible, but to give it as freely as possible and to put the minimum of inconvenience upon the persons concerned. It is quite true that in Committee the Minister did say, in order to make the Clause perfectly fair, that a man need not be fined if he had not his licence with him, provided that he showed it at a police station within five days. The first point that I want to make is that the police station is not one to be decided upon by the police, but is any police station to which the man may decide to go. Therefore, leaving the question of identification aside for the moment, it is obviously much more convenient for the man who has inadvertently left his licence behind if he can send it by an accredited representative. He might be taken ill, or he might the next day be going abroad; there are quite a number of cases in which it would be very inconvenient to him if he were a rich man, and would bear hardly upon his pocket if he were a poor man, to have to attend in person.

When the Under-Secretary pointed out that paragraph (i) of Clause 30, which I had not noticed, would enable the Minister to make regulations for identification, I thought he was making that a ground for obliging the motorist to produce his licence in person, but, surely, if it is only a question of man's signature—for I suppose it is not a question of having a thumb-mark on the licence, and subjecting him to the indignity of having it compared at the police station, but that it is only contemplated that he should be asked to sign the licence—surely, in that case, a letter which would give to the person who brings the licence the power to produce it to the police would be sufficient. The production in person of the licence at any police station would not enable the sergeant or superintendent in charge to know whether the person producing it is the owner of the licence, since in 99 cases out of 100 he will never have seen the owner of the licence before. It is said that he is going to be identified because he will be asked to sign his name and it will be compared with the signature on the licence, and I say that it would be equally sufficient if he were allowed to send his licence by an accredited representative, accompanied by a signed letter which would serve for purposes of identification. It seems to be thoroughly spiteful on the part of the Government to refuse this concession, and, having granted a concession, to make it as disagreeable as possible. If the concession is made, let it be made gracefully and whole-heartedly, and not in any niggardly manner.

There is nothing in the Clause that assists identification, for it allows the licence to be produced at any police station. The person asked to produce his licence may be a thief who has stolen the car, but he can easily get a licence and call at any police station and produce it. If, under paragraph (i) of Clause 30, it were going to be required that the licence should bear a photograph, like a passport, there might be something to be said for it, because then the holder of the licence would call with it and the photograph could be compared. That would be a real test of identification, but at the present moment it is a sheer piece of annoyance. It should be possible to post a licence with a stamped addressed envelope in which it could be returned to the holder, and even an representative should not be necessary. A man may be motoring to catch a steamer going to the Continent, and in that case he could not possibly attend within five days. The whole thing is oppressive, and, at any rate, an accredited representative with a proper letter should be quite sufficient for the purpose.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out the words "the applicant," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"an applicant who is suffering from a disease or disability other than a disease or disability prescribed as aforesaid."

Cannot the Minister put this in slightly better language? We prescribe for a disease but we do not prescribe a disease. It is a very awkward phrase.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out the words "an offence under this part of this Act" and to insert instead thereof the words "any criminal offence."

This is almost a drafting Amendment. Together with the succeeding Amendment it is to ensure that a man may be disqualified by the judge, by virtue of a conviction for manslaughter, from obtaining a licence.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, after the word "endorsed" to insert the words:

"and who has not previously become entitled under the provisions of this section to have a licence issued to him free from endorsement."

The effect of this is to make it unnecessary for an applicant for a licence to declare any endorsements which have been cancelled owing to the fact that in the period he had not committed any offence which rendered him liable to have his licence endorsed.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, to leave out the word "sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen".

This relates to the age at which a young person is entitled to drive a motor vehicle. In the draft Road Traffic Bill of the late Minister the age was 15, and the Bill was circulated to all authorities, and I do not think any objections were raised to the age. The Royal Commission on Road Transport reported that 14 was too low, and they recommended 16. On searching the records, I could not find any evidence of any kind for or against the age of 16. They arbitrarily fixed it without any evidence to suggest that 16 was a proper age. I believe there is not a single case of a boy under 16 being run in for reckless driving. No doubt, parents will object to the age being 15, because they want to put off as long as possible the evil day when they will have to present their son with a motor cycle, but a boy of 15 who has been given a cycle is very proud of it and is not going to risk damaging it.

The younger you can train a person to acquire road sense the better. We all one day or another become motor drivers, and the longer we have driven the more experienced we are. It is of great value that a boy should acquire road sense and understand the dangers of the road, and he will very soon learn. The Bill says he has to satisfy the local authority that, during the six months immediately preceding 1st January, 1930, he was in the habit of driving a motor vehicle. A boy who took out a licence and drove a motor cycle last August comes up again this August and is told, "You cannot drive a car. You are under sixteen years of age.' And yet he has been driving for a year. That is a thoroughly unfair position in which to put a boy.

It has been the law of the land for 25 years that a boy of 14 could drive a motor cycle. Not a single case can be adduced where a boy of 14 or 15 has been found guilty of reckless driving. A more dangerous age is when he has got to know more about his cycle, when he is starting to court and wants to show off to his lady friends. He wants to show them that his bicycle is better than that of his friend, who may be courting the same girl. There may be a certain rivalry between the two. They are anxious to show off their particular motor cycle at that age. No one would presume that the age at which a person should be entitled to drive a motor cycle ought to be raised to 18 or 19 years, which is a far more dangerous age. I am sure that if there had been a case of a boy of 14 or 15 driving recklessly, there would have been an enormous fuss about it in the newspapers. Attention would have been drawn right and left to the fact that here was a boy of 14 driving recklessly a motor cycle. There would have been an outcry at once. It would have been said that it was ridiculous that a boy of 14 should be allowed to drive. I suggest that it is not an unfair compromise to raise the age, not by two years, but from 14 to 15.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I sincerely trust that the House will not be carried away by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). I think that his argument is very largely based upon a wrong hypothesis. Happily, there are very few licences at the present time granted to, or applied for by, boys of 14 or even 15. It is not likely, therefore, that you can have statistics of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Member in connection with this matter. Take the personal aspect of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has already referred to the point. Many of us have sons, some of whom have grown far beyond the age of 14 or 15 or even 16, and there may be hon. Members in the House who have sons of the age of between 15 and 16. Is there a single hon. Member who would care to allow his son of 15 years of age to obtain a driver's licence to drive a motor cycle? I am certain that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were put in that position, he would do his utmost to prevent anyone connected with him from getting a licence. It must not be forgotten that the licence which would be obtained in the first place would be a licence to drive what is, after all, the most dangerous vehicle upon the road. The Committee in its wisdom—I do not know what the House may do—decided that there should be no speed limit for vehicles of this character. Is the House prepared to allow a boy of between 15 and 16, with very little discretion probably, to be in a position to drive along the roads of the country without any limit to the speed at which he should drive? I am certain that the common sense of the House would agree that 16 years even is too low. I should have been ready to support an Amendment which had put the age at 17 instead of 16, and not at 15 instead of 16.

As the House generally knows, I have had some experience of the handling of moving bodies, having been an engine driver.

On rails.

Exactly. My experience is that certainly the age of 16 is too low at which to entrust a person with a fast moving vehicle. We had some experience of this matter during the War, when the age for recruitment for the local department was reduced and they entrusted lads somewhere about the age of 16 to move locomotive engines. We had to be very careful how they did it. Everyone realises what has happened from time to time when unauthorised cleaners have attempted to move locomotives.

They do not own the locomotive, as does the boy his motor cycle. The boy is more careful.

That may be so, but the hon. and gallant Member carefully excluded from his remarks reference to the temptation to a boy to do all sorts of things on the road. When one sees a boy of about 15 on an ordinary push-bike one realises that the boy is not quite as careful as the hon. and gallant Member would have us believe. On the other hand, I think that 16 is too low for any person to have charge of a mechanical vehicle on the road, and I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment on that account.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:

( ) A person under eighteen years of age shall not drive a heavy motor car on a road.

The Bill as at present drawn provides that a man has to be 21 before he is allowed to drive a heavy motor vehicle upon the road. I observe that there is an Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Col. Howard-Bury) suggesting that the age should be 19. I should think, if the Government would agree to it, that 19 would be a very good compromise. Very serious arguments can be put forward for the alteration of the age. When we were in Committee my right hon. Friend said that he had received a good many communications from the motor manufacturers, and from the Showmen's Guild, in which they said that in their view the age of 21 was too high, and would be detrimental to their business. They gave certain instances which showed that the age of 21 was too high. Personally, I think that the age of 19 is sufficient. I agree that, when you get to a traction engine or other forms of heavy locomotive, it might be proper that the higher age should be put into force, but for this particular type of vehicle the age of 18 would be sufficient. I move my Amendment for these reasons, and in order to obtain the reply of the Government on the subject, to see whether, if they cannot accept the particular age mentioned in my Amendment they are able to accept the age put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment came before the Committee, and a rather long discussion took place. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made a very comprehensive reply upon the matter. In all these matters of age limits, there is room for a division of opinion, but in this case my hon. Friend has followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which recommended that no person under 21 years of age should be allowed to drive a heavy motor car or a public service vehicle. The Clause follows that recommendation. I do not think that my hon. Friend is disposed to vary his opinion. Therefore, I shall ask the House to adopt the Clause as it stands.

We have not had much enlightenment from the Under-Secretary to the Home Department. His reply seems to have been that what the Minister of Transport has said he has said, and we have to take it or leave it. In all seriousness, while we are anxious to get this Bill through as soon as possible, when a serious Amendment such as this is moved it might be treated at greater length by the representative of the Government. This is a matter of great importance to the livelihood of many people. There was no answer given upstairs on this point, namely, that if it was right and proper and not a danger to the public for a private in the Army Service Corps or in the Air Force to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the age of 17 or 18, why should it not be right and proper and not harmful or dangerous to the public that Tom Smith, who is not in the Army or Air Force, should drive a vehicle, although he is under 21 years of age? The answer was that one would be under discipline and the other not. Is it seriously contended that the sergeant sits beside the Army Service driver, holds his hand and practically drives the vehicle? Of course, he does not. These Army drivers drive just as independently as any civilian driver and the argument that it must necessarily be a danger to the public to allow someone to drive one of these vehicles if he happens to be under 21 years of age, falls to the ground.

The Government in their Bill deliberately exclude drivers in the Army or the Air Force under that age, therefore the argument of danger cannot hold water. It is evidently not dangerous for a man under 21 to drive a heavy motor car. I admit that it is probably undesirable for a man under 21 to drive a public service vehicle, but that is rather a different proposition from driving a heavy motor car on the read. The driver of a public service vehicle must have great experience, becuse he has the lives of perhaps 40 or 50 people in his charge, but he is in a different category from the man who drives a goods vehicle on the road. I do not see why it is necessary that the age should be as high as 21. It is argued that if the age of 17 is the proper age at which a man may be allowed to drive an ordinary light car, possibly the age might be raised a year or two for those who have to drive heavy motor vehicles. Therefore, I think the Amendment of my noble friend is sound. To stick, almost without argument, to the age of 21 seems to me to be a hit unreasonable. Take the case of young showmen under 21 who drive heavy vehicles. They are most reliable young fellows and no accident has happened to them, and it seems hard that they should be prevented from starting on a vocation until they are 21, when at the present time they are driving perfectly safely.

2.0 p.m.

In these days of unemployment the House ought to remember that there are lots of young fellows in factories and motor workshops who may have the laud able ambition of following in their father's footsteps and becoming drivers of heavy motor vehicles. If they are not to be allowed to drive until they are 21, it is hard that they should in the meantime be driven to some other occupation because of this cast iron rule. Before that age they might go on the road with an instructor and learn their job before they are allowed to drive. I give these instances to show that the matter is not quite as simple as the Under-Secretary of State imagines. There are arguments on the side of my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment, and I suggest to the Minister of Transport that even at this 11th hour, before the Bill goes back to another place, some concession might be made in the case of the young fellows for whom we are appealing. In these days of unemployment we do not want to cut them off from getting work.

I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intended no discourtesy in speaking briefly on this matter, which was dealt with at length in Committee. One must be careful as to the occupations in which one fixes a minimum age. There may be some point in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this prohibition raises some difficulty with regard to employment among young men between the ages of 18 to 21. On the other hand, there are compensating advantages in having a restricted number of employments where there is a minimum age of entry, otherwise it would leave it open for a young man to be employed up to a certain age and then he might get dismissed and not be able to get permanent employment elsewhere, because the wages that he would require would be too high. Therefore, I suggest that, on balance, there is not a great deal in the point. It is also argued that it is desirable to lower the age in order to allow for a period of training before a person becomes a full driver. I suggest that that can be met by the growing tendency towards large units of motor transport. There, no doubt, a young man could get previous experience in handling motor vehicles in garages by acting as a cleaner and in other ways, and if the employers want to train him, they could do so, off the highway or on their own private property.

To come to the point as to what is a reasonable minimum age, I would recall to the House the fact that this is an occupation which covers the driving of very large omnibuses and motor coaches, and that a considerable number of human beings depend for their lives upon the responsibility of the driver. I am not sure that is is desirable that such vehicles should be handled by young men between the ages of 18 and 21, who may be a little more lively than responsible upon occasion; not that a young man of 21 is free from liveliness.

In my speech I excluded, and I think my noble friend definitely also excluded, the possibility of these young fellows between the ages of 18 and 21 driving public service vehicles. We are dealing here entirely with goods traffic.

I am afraid that this Amendment would apply to public service vehicles.

There is an Amendment which excludes public service vehicles.

When we come to a heavy motor vehicle which is not a public service vehicle, we find that these vehicles can be and are large, cumbrous and weighty vehicles. Anyone who has had experience of the road will know that violent altercations sometimes occur between drivers of private motor cars and drivers of these heavy commercial vehicles. It is not for me to say whether the private driver or the commercial driver is in the right, but there is no doubt that a heavy commercial vehicle can be a very serious and formidable vehicle on the road, and if it is not carefully driven a very great danger to other users of the highway. We have to draw the line somewhere. If a person is not responsible to vote at elections until he is 21—I do not put this forward as a conclusive argument—it seems right that he should not be allowed to drive these heavy vehicles until he has reached the same age. Hon. Members opposite who urged 25 for voting ought to say that he should be 25 years of age. The more we instil into this great industry the feeling that it has a very responsible job on the highways the better for the safety of motor traffic.

There is one strong argument in favour of the age of 18 which the Minister of Transport has not met. Drivers of heavy locomotives frequently have to take a load to a distant point, stay away that night, coming back the next day. One of the great arguments put forward for continuing the employment of people of the age of 18 is that they will all be unmarried young men; that this is a very suitable form of employment for unmarried young men and is a form of employment not so suitable for married men because they would have to sleep out almost as often as they sleep at home. I am assured by owners of these locomotives that far from being irresponsible and likely to drive carelessly or recklessly these young men seem to have more sense of responsibility and a greater anxiety to drive with care and caution than people who are somewhat older. In view of the strong argument that we should not close this avenue of employment I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision. In regard to public vehicles and heavy motor cars we are quite prepared to accept the position. That requires a different degree of skill and nerve, and there is a case for the age of 21 in the case of these vehicles, but in regard to heavy locomotives, which go at moderate speed and which have been successfully driven by young men between the ages of 18 and 21, I do not think the case is sufficiently strong to deprive them of this avenue of employment

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). A young man of 18 can drive just as well as a man of 25 or 26, but he has not the same mentality. I drive thousands of miles on the roads every year, and it is the young man of 18 and 19 who blocks the road with his heavy lorry and will not give way. These young men cause more than half the troubles on the road. It is not a question of whether they can drive as well as the older men, it is a question of his outlook, his point of civility, which is much less than that of the married man. As to the married men being kept away from home there are probably many cases in which they would prefer it, after they have been married for some years. The married man would probably feel inclined to spend his evenings in a sober righteous manner, whilst the young man would prefer to go to a cinema and sit up to a late hour, which means that in the morning he is not quite so capable of driving along the road to the convenience of other drivers. I shall certainly support the Minister of Transport.

The hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) assumes that everybody over 21 years of age is married. That, of course, is not the case. In putting forward this legislation the Government are dictating to the young man of 18 that he is not to go into this avenue of employment. They are going to deprive many people of a means of earning their living. These young men can also be trained in this way and by the time they reach the age of 21 will be efficient drivers. I shall support the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:

"and shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of the first offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

It is very wrong to impose the heavy penalties in the Bill when it is obvious that the offences do not deserve them. The penalties in this Clause are for those under 16 who drive a motor cycle, for those under 17 who drive a motor vehicle, and for a person under the age of 21 who drives one of the other vehicles mentioned in the Subsection. A penalty of £20 for a first offence or £50, in the case of a second offence, is too heavy. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I know what he is going to say. He will say that these are maximum penalties, and that it is left to the magistrates to decide whether these penalties shall be imposed. But is it not obvious that if we allow magistrates to get the idea that the House of Commons has deliberately put these penalties into the Bill, the magistrates will naturally regard these offences as serious offences?

I would suggest that the magistrates have as much common sense as Members of this House.

That is no reason why we should not use a little common sense ourselves. We are making this House look ridiculous by putting in heavy penalties for dealing with what after all are minor offences. An hon. Friend said just now that the law was an ass. I suggest that if we allow this Bill to go through without Amendment the law will be rather more of an ass than it is already.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It has been said several times to-day, and it is an observation which is frequently heard in these discussions, that the law is an ass. The law may be an ass, but it is better to be a proper ass than an amateur ass, and any man who requires professional assistance, if he is sensible, will get true assistance and not amateur assistance. The Minister seems to have a very inadequate understanding of the duty of this House in regard to it. I make no apology to him or to any other Minister for detaining the House for two minutes on a matter which is of public importance. We are here to discuss this Bill and we shall perform our duty. If the Minister had had the patience to wait a little longer he would have had no need to express impatience by a gesture. This Amendment raises a point which has been raised again and again this morning, and I hope that in the interest of our discussions it will not be raised further. The Bill proceeds upon the footing that where offences are committed the Bill should be restricted to stating the maximum punishment for these offences, leaving to the courts the decision as to how much of that maximum punishment should be applied in a particualr case. That is a perfectly reasonable procedure which is common in the administration of justice, and frankly I think that Amendments of this kind, after the explanations that have been given to-day, should not be persisted in.

I have just listened to one of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever heard. The hon. and learned Member got up and first of all lectured his Minister for something which he was supposed to have done. That left me perfectly cold. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to state that an Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled to be in Order is an improper and absurd Amendment, and that we should pay no attention to it.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent me. I merely suggested that Amendments which raised exactly the same point later should not be persisted in.

If the hon. and learned Member will read the Bill he will see that the Amendments deal with different Clauses. We are perfectly in Order in raising the point whenever the Chair decides that our Amendments are in Order. However, I am not going to lecture the hon. and learned Member any more.

It has been assumed by speakers that this Clause would apply to offences by young men of 17 or 18, but the more serious offences that can be dealt with under this Clause are mentioned in Sub-section (4) which says:

"Any person who drives or causes or permits any person to drive …"

Obviously, if the owner of a heavy motor vehicle sends out a man of 17 with that vehicle it is a serious offence which ought to be dealt with by the maximum penalty. Why should we reduce the penalty in such a case to £5 in the first instance? If the Amendment were accepted, it might often be worth while for the owner of a heavy motor car to run the risk of sending out a young man of that age in charge of the car.

It is true that this Amendment in its application is different from a previous Amendment that we discussed, but the principle involved was largely covered by the last discussion, and therefore I hope that the House will now come to a conclusion. I take the view that this is a very serious offence not only on the part of the driver of the vehicle, but that it can be a very serious offence on the part of unscrupulous employers, who might be employing a fair number of people below the age. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) so ably discharged the duties of the Minister in answering the Amendment that it is not necessary for me to say anything more.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "liable" to insert the words "if a person under the age of twenty-one."

I regard this question as one of importance. I agree with an hon. Friend who said that there is no reason whatever for this exemption, so far as it applies to a person of full age who causes or commits any person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of this Clause. So far as he is concerned I see no reason whatever for limiting the general penalty provided in the Bill. But so far as this Clause is dealing with young persons I think there is a very strong case indeed for limiting the powers of magistrates with regard to such young persons. It is all very well to say that magistrates have as much common sense as Members of this House. On the whole I suppose that this is true, but you cannot argue the common sense of a body of men like the magistrates of this country and try to balance it against the common sense of the Members of this House. What you have to deal with is the fact that in practice time and time again benches of magistrates have been wholly unreasonable in their treatment of young people. [Interruption.] There is no question whatever about it. One of the most difficult——

On a point of Order. I drew up a question calling into question the decision of a bench of magistrates in my city, and I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that that was not a question which could be answered in this House. I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proceeding on the lines from which I have been debarred.

It is not in order to call in question the decisions of a particular bench of magistrates, but the hon. and learned Member's remarks were of so sweeping a character that they referred to magistrates as a whole.

I am very far from calling in question any decision of any particular bench of magistrates. What I am pointing out is that one of the most serious questions which has arisen of recent years in connection with the administration of justice, is that of the extraordinary variations between different benches of magistrates in their treatment of young people. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite, who evidently desires to be personal, makes some remark about a particular class of justices. I am not differentiating between classes of justices. I have done as much as any Member of this House to see that young people are not treated in a way which will lead them into the paths of crime and it is for that reason that I intervene now. I think it is eminently desirable, when dealing with a Clause which, in the main, concerns people under 21, that we should take care to put a limit into the Statute which will prevent anything in the nature of extravagant or oppressive sentences. I think if the Mover accepts my proposal and limits the Amendment to cases of persons under 21 it will meet the case and perhaps the Minister will accept the Amendment in that form.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I do not think that the Amendment, even in the altered form suggested, would be desirable. It would mean that if a young man, possibly of wealth and substance, who was 20½ years of age or 20 years 11 months was irresponsibly driving a vehicle which Parliament had decided he ought not to handle, he could get away with a fine of £5. Really, the assumption that the courts of summary jurisdiction in this country are instinctively severe and harsh in reference to motor offences will not fit the facts. There are a good many complaints—and some of them if I may say so with respect have some little reason—in the opposite direction. Hon. Members who think that the penalties imposed in these cases may be severe should be comforted by the reflection that the courts will exercise a reasonable discretion, and I think we may be quite sure that they will do so. As the House knows, the courts are not irresponsible and free in the sending of young people to prison nowadays and I am sure that the magistrates will endeavour to make the punishment fit the crime. I hope, although there is an Amendment proposed to the original Amendment, that the discussion on this subject will not gain a new lease of life because we have already discussed the major principle on a previous Amendment, and as we have only another hour and a half left for discussion and as we are getting on to the interesting subject of the speed limit, I hope that the House will come to a decision.

May I ask a question? In the case of magisterial decisions on licensing questions affecting local areas any person connected with a brewery is automatically debarred from acting as a magistrate. Is it possible to include in the framework of the Bill a provision to exclude the motoring justice of the peace from adjudicating in these cases?

I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, after the word "road" to insert the words:

"at a greater speed than thirty-five miles per hour or."

This Amendment seeks to retain the speed limit under this Bill and many of us on this side feel that it is the most important Amendment to come before the House to-day because, in our judgment, on the passing or rejection of this Amendment will depend the lives of many people. It is brought forward at the request of the Pedestrians' Association, the Holiday Fellowship Association and the National Cyclists' Union, and I have also been asked, officially, to move it on behalf of the London County Council. That body is very much concerned indeed with the question of the preservation of the speed limit in the Metropolitan area. In January of this year the Minister of Transport called a conference representing a number of borough councils and a number of motoring associations and that conference, as far as London was concerned, decided by an overwhelming majority that it was desirable to retain a speed limit not only within the inner ring of London but in the Greater London area. A great many urban district councils and borough councils are most anxious that the present speed limit or a speed limit should remain in existence. The number of motor cars on the road is increasing every year at an alarming rate. This year, at the present rate, 20 persons will be killed and 500 injured on the road every single day of the year and if the present progress continues, it means that in three or four years from now over 10,000 people will lose their lives on the road each year.

Many of us on this side feel that one of the principal causes—not the sole cause, of course; we do not suggest that for a moment—of these terrible fatalities is excessive speed by a great many motorists, and in our judgment this Bill does practically nothing to reduce this terrible toll of human life that is going on to-day. We also believe that if the speed limit is abolished, it will mean an actual increase in the number of fatalities. The Minister has refused during the Committee stage, the inclusion of practically every safeguard that has been suggested from all quarters, from Members opposite and on this side. He has refused any kind of test which might make for safety. He will have nothing to do with tests of driving capacity, tests of physical fitness, eyesight tests, or examination in the knowledge of the rules of the road, and apparently to-day, if the Clause is passed unamended, it will mean that any person, however incapable, is given a perfectly free hand to run on the roads of this country as fast as he can get a vehicle to run him.

The danger to the pedestrian to-day occurs not only when he essays to cross the road or is actually walking on the road; he is to-day subjected to an increasing danger when actually on the pavement or footpath. The deaths of pedestrians walking or standing on the pavement are reported in the papers every day in the week. Three weeks ago the Press reported in one week the deaths of 24 pedestrians on the pavement caused by motor vehicles mounting the kerb, and in the majority of cases such accidents were due to excessive speed. Judging from the Press cuttings which I have been examining in the last few days, particularly from provincial papers, not less than three people are killed every day in the week while walking or standing on the footways of this country.

Several Members of this House within the last few months have narrowly escaped with their lives in consequence of this particular form of accident. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) was walking on a footpath that had a six-inch kerb, with his wife, in April last. Without any warning, he and his wife were knocked down from behind, and both were seriously injured. He suffered from concussion and was unconscious for some time, and his wife was in hospital for nine weeks. The evidence in that case was that they were so injured by a motor vehicle coming round a corner at a tremendous speed and out of control, and mounting the pavement. That is going on, and in a considerable proportion of the cases where pedestrians are killed on the footpath the cause is undoubtedly the excessive speed of motor vehicles.

When I spoke in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill, I referred to the fact that in my own borough 600 trees growing on the footways were knocked down every year by motor vehicles. The Minister took the opportunity later on of denying that or to question my figures. I have subsequently verified them from the officials in my borough; and I have verified the fact that in Birmingham over 20 lamp-pasts or lamp standards on the pavement are knocked down every day by vehicles. Since I made that statement publicly in this House, I have received hundreds of letters from all parts of the country making similar complaints and pointing out, in fact, that the chief value of a lamp standard or tree on the pavement nowadays is its protection to the pedestrians walking on the path.

In the "Evening Standard" a short time ago there was a statement that the little village of Meriden, which is supposed to be the geographical centre of England, was gaining an unenviable record for road accidents. This little rural village has had 35 road deaths in the last 18 months, in nine of which cases pedestrians, including a number of young children going to school, were knocked down and killed while walking on the pavement. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is an increasing number of cars sold to-day which are advertised to do 70, 75, and up to 80 miles an hour. Those cars are being actually sold on their speed merits, and they are being purchased by people who intend to use them at their full capacity. In fact, if time permitted, I could produce a number of letters, including two from hon. Members of this House, stating that they have actually purchased highspeed cars and are using them at the present time, whenever they get the chance, at speeds above 70 miles an hour. Incidentally, I may say that during the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs we had acknowledgment after acknowledgment from hon. Members opposite that they were law-breakers in this regard and that they intended to be lawbreakers.

Not on your side as well?

I would call the attention of the House, and of the Minister himself, to a cutting from a paper for which the Minister has a good deal of regard and affection. It is his own paper—the "Daily Herald." Only three or four days ago there was an article in the "Daily Herald" from their motoring correspondent, who, one of his colleagues informs me, has himself been what he calls a speed merchant up till recently, and this is what he says about the recent bank holiday:

"I have never seen so many examples of dangerous and careless, even criminal, driving crowded into six hours as I saw yesterday … on the main roads."

He gives certain reasons, and says:

"One is that 75 per cent. of drivers are under the quite mistaken impression that there is no speed limit in operation now. Accordingly, every driver is travelling much faster, and few have any experience of driving at speed."

His own view about no speed limit has evidently been changed, because his own life was endangered on this particular occasion, when he says:

"Two motor coaches, travelling abreast at 40 miles an hour, bore down upon me."

His only mode of escape was to drive on to the grass verge just in time to prevent a very serious collision. I have cuttings from every single one of the daily organs of the London Press showing that this sort of thing is going on continuously. The "Daily News" motoring correspondent points out exactly the same thing, and says that he witnessed a succession of

"narrow shaves, leaving a feeling of almost unrelieved motoring gloom."

He goes on to say:

"I saw more road 'crimes' than I ever thought possible in such a brief time. The culprits were irresponsible people who drove in terms of speed only."

This he saw happen hundreds of times in the course of the morning, and in every case they were driving at speeds which were obviously unsafe, and many of them particularly so, having regard to the fact that their brakes had limited powers of deceleration. The police apparently take no notice of these offences, and even papers like the "Daily Express" calling attention to the fact that motor coaches hurtle along the main roads at 70 miles an hour. One of their correspondents, travelling in one of these coaches, says:

"Nothing had passed us on the road. Our driver's motto was the French war slogan, 'They shall not pass.'"

He goes on to point out that any car that attempted to pass them was given

"short shrift. … When they tried to maintain their lead we accelerated and passed them in the dark by inches. Scared faces peered up at us"

and so on. That may be very good journalese, but it is none the less descriptive of what is happening every day, and what every Member of the House knows is happening. I drew the attention of the Committee, and I do not hesitate to draw the attention of the House, to a report published in several of the papers describing how undergraduates break records between Oxford and London and Cambridge and London; and, in the particular instance given in a cutting which I have here from the "Daily Mail," the distance between London and Oxford was covered at an average of over 60 miles an hour, which means that at certain spots the vehicle must have been travelling at between 80 and 90 miles an hour. [Interruption.] It is no use my hon. Friend interrupting and attempting to depreciate these facts. These are facts reported and substantiated not by anti-motorists, but by persons who are defending the motoring interests, and who are themselves complaining that this sort of thing is going on and ought to be stopped.

There is a speed limit of 20 miles an hour which no one attempts to enforce, and the Minister says that if a higher limit were determined it also would not be enforced. If the Parliament of this country lays down a law with regard to motorists, motorists ought to be expected to observe it as much as other people observe other laws. I could quote them from every journal in London other cuttings of a similar character. A writer in the "Daily News," referring to the instances of undergraduates travelling from Oxford or Cambridge to London at an average of over 60 miles an hour, states that he knew nothing of these particular exploits,

"but I do know of other and more sensational drives from London in the last two months."

Everyone who has had his eyes open and has been interested in this subject, must know that these incidents are practically of daily occurrence, and it is time some definite steps were taken to put an end to them. The Bill does nothing to deal with these offences beyond increasing penalties. At the present moment, reckless and dangerous driving is illegal; and our complaint is that the police are doing practically nothing to stop it. The test now of dangerous driving is whether the person accused has actually smashed somebody up or not. In a few cases, prosecutions are undertaken for dangerous driving where no accidents have occurred, but in most cases the prosecution is after an accident. The mere introduction of this Bill, with the intimation that the speed limit was to be abolished, has resulted, in the opinion of many responsible people, in a considerable increase in the number of road fatalities and accidents. I have here a cutting from the "Yorkshire Evening Post" headed, "Grave rise in Leeds street toll." The cutting gives an interview with the Chief Constable of Leeds, who said he thought that because of the prominence given to the proposed abolition of the speed limit for private vehicles by the new Traffic Bill many motorists had got the impression that already they could drive at what speed they liked, and this had led to undue recklessness. There is the evidence of a responsible police official. I do not want to detain the House too long, and I refrain from quoting the opinions of six or seven coroners who have held inquests since the Bill was introduced. They have all expressed the same view, namely, that the mere introduction of the Bill had given encouragement to recklessness and increased fatalities. We are asked to give absolute statistical proof that speed is in itself a cause of danger. I submit that that is impossible. [Interruption.] It is impossible to give statistical proof on that point; it is a matter of common sense.

What about the Royal Commission's Report?

I know what the Royal Commission said, and there is a goad answer to it. I will submit one or two figures to demonstrate the opinion which some of us hold that speed is in itself a dangerous factor. The number of cars on the road is increasing at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, but the number of accidents is increasing at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum. This proportion of increase can only be due either to increased recklessness or to increased incapacity. In either case, the abolition of the speed limit will obviously tend to make things worse. Nobody can deny that.

There is an amazing inconsistency in this Bill with regard to the question of the speed limit. The Bill abolishes the limit for light cars and for private motors which seat more than seven persons, but it retains a limit for all other classes of vehicles. The Minister has repeatedly argued that it is impossible to enforce a speed limit. If it be impossible to enforce a limit with regard to private cars, it is impossible to enforce it with regard to heavy cars. It is a major inconsistency to say that we will lay down a speed limit for a car which holds eight persons, and no speed limit for a car that holds seven persons. Yet all the statistical evidence is to the effect that the light car is the real danger on the road to-day. The figures are absolutely conclusive that the increase in accidents during the last two years in particular, and the last four years in general, has been mainly due to light cars, out of all proportion to the increase in the number of light cars as compared with heavy cars and public-service vehicles. [Interruption.]

As I am challenged, I will give the figures. As far as Greater London is concerned, the number of light cars and motor cycles actually on the streets, as shown, of course, by the number of vehicles passing a certain number of points over the 12 hours, has increased by 65 per cent. in the years from 1920 to 1926, but the number of people killed by light cars and motor cycles increased by 112 per cent., while the number of people injured increased by 250 per cent. As far as taxi cabs and trams are concerned, the total number of people killed decreased in that period. As far as heavy cars and commercial vehicles are concerned, the number of vehicles increased by 38 per cent., while the number of persons killed increased by only 48 per cent., and the number of persons injured by only 50 per cent. It shows clearly that it is the light car and the private motor which are the real danger on the streets to-day.

Could the hon. Gentleman say whether any of these accidents were due to excessive speed, or what the proportion was?

I am not arguing that point at the moment. I am arguing at the moment that it is totally inconsistent to impose a speed limit on the heavy car, which does less damage to life, and to abolish the speed limit for the light car, which does the most damage. I submit that that is a valid argument. Practically every argument that the Minister used in Committee and in his Second Reading speech in opposition to a speed limit for light cars applies equally to heavy cars—all except one particular argument, and when he used it I had a very severe shock. One of his arguments for imposing a speed limit on heavy cars was that the heavy cars caused damage to the road surface and the light cars did not. The damage, the destruction of human life, was not a matter that weighed with him at all.

My hon. Friend has made a number of sweeping assertions. I really think there ought to be a speed limit to his assertions. I most emphatically deny such a statement.

I say that I was very shocked, indeed, when I heard the Minister make that particular defence of the speed limit for heavy cars and no speed limit for light cars. I am perfectly certain that the public will hold this House responsible, that it will hold this House guilty of aiding and abetting murder.![HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say so deliberately, if after this Clause is carried in an unamended form, a very considerable increase in road fatalities occurs, as I, and many on this side, believe, I say that the public will hold responsible this House in general and the Minister in particular. I want to say one word finally in respect to the views of the London County Council. The London County Council special committee endorsed the views put forward by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Metropolitan Magistrates and the Magistrates' Association, that a speed limit for ordinary motor cars should be maintained in London and Greater London, and they approved of the speed limit of 35 miles per hour.

I beg to second the Amendment.

3.0 p.m.

I hope that the House will believe that I speak without bias when I say that I am not only a pedestrian but a motorist as well. My experience tells me that the motorist loses control of his machine the greater the speed at which he is going, and that his concentration is always on one operation of the motor, and that is in steering the machine. Everything else is done sub-consciously, that is to say, the faster he drives, the less able is he to anticipate the trouble that may come from a pedestrian crossing in front of him or of another car coming across his path. The pedestrian, in my opinion, has more right to the use of the road than the motorist, because the pedestrian is simply using the road for his own purpose without encumbrances, but the motorist uses the road, and at the same time takes with him a dangerous implement. Therefore, he must expect to be under a certain measure of control, and to exercise a little more vigilance even than is necessary in the case of the pedestrian. What happens when the driver is taking his machine along? If he goes at the rate, say, of 35 miles au hour, he is in absolute control of his machine, and his faculty for anticipating trouble remains unimpaired. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am quite prepared to admit that there are drivers and drivers, just as there are motor cars and motor cars, and what will apply in one case does not necessarily apply to all cases. We are bound to speak in general terms in a discussion of this kind, and I say that the main factor of safety is perfect control on the part of the driver of the machine that he is using. I am quite prepared to admit, also, that there are some drivers so skilful and so experienced that they could travel at 60 miles an hour with greater safety than less experienced drivers at 20 miles an hour, but they are exceptions. We are legislating not for the exception but for the general standard of motor-driving on the road. It is not always the experienced driver who goes at the greatest speed. It is the driver who has been at it a short time and whose temperament is, shall I say, optimistic. He has realised how fast he can go by the mere touch of his foot on the pedal and without any other exertion, and he goes—and then very often some one else goes with him. Such a man——

Or a woman.

and especially a woman—when he feels the influence coming upon him, because I speak from experience, knows no law of nature that will prevent him putting his foot down and letting the car show what it can do. Anyone who is acquainted with motoring knows that that is the experience of every driver. He never learns better until something happens, and then it is too late to undo what has been done. This is just a plain, unvarnished analysis of what takes place when a man has got his hand on the wheel. A motorist comes to the cross roads, and it depends upon the speed at which he is travelling whether he is taking any precaution lest anything should be coming in the opposite direction or across his track. I submit that if 35 miles an hour is not fast enough for any man who wants a week end at Brighton——

Or in the infirmary.

No, it is not the driver who goes into the infirmary; it is the unfortunate victim—unless he goes into the mortuary. At the cross roads his speed may be anything from 40 to 60 miles an hour. As a man can get to Brighton in an hour and a half or an hour and three-quarters with a speed limit of 35 miles an hour, I submit that is fast enough for any dare-devil driver to go. This House ought to have some regard for the safety of the men and women whom they represent. Motorists belong to a privileged class. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I speak as a motorist. I belong to that privileged class, but I am not going to allow the privileges conferred upon me by my licence to destroy my appreciation of the rights of men and women who use the roads to enjoy immunity from the mad career of the racing motorist. When you allow a speed limit to be broken, as the present limit is broken because it is too low, surely it is right to consider what speed limit is sufficiently high to enable it to be enforced. For these reasons, I submit that the House will be doing no less than its duty by adopting the Amendment.

This is a very sad fate for me. The Amendment has been moved by the Treasurer of the London Labour party and seconded by the Chairman of that party, and I am the Hon. Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has delighted the House with his experiences in connection with a seven horse-power car, and he has told us the dangerous things which can be done. The hon. Member has passed the stage of apprenticeship and has become a fully qualified driver, and he is now anxious to keep the other drivers on the road in order.

This is a question upon which hon. Members made up their minds on the Second Reading of this Bill and during the Committee stage, and no Minister of Transport would bring forward lightly a proposal to abolish the speed limit for light motor cars without a good deal of responsible consideration. I fully recognise that this is a serious step to take. I recognise that I have to justify that step. I listened carefully to the speech which has been made by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) in which he has revealed a number of cases of dangerous driving and condemns the existing practices on the road. The whole of that speech was a conclusive proof that the speed limit arrangements have broken down. It is no answer to say that those arrangements have broken down because the police refuse to do their duty, or because the Minister of Transport refuses to do his duty.

When a law becomes out of date and ridiculous, when members of the public no longer desire that a certain law shall be enforced, and when public opinion has come to the conclusion that it is out of date and antiquated, the police have to adapt themselves to modern conditions. There are many laws in this country which are not enforced because public opinion will not tolerate them when attempts are made to put them into force. The position which the House has to face is this: Do Members of the House expect the police to enforce the existing speed limit? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Some hon. Members have the hardihood to say that they do expect the police to enforce the existing speed limit, but every hon. Member who is sitting here has doubtless driven in a car that has exceeded that speed limit. You have only to ride on an omnibus down Whitehall to do it. In that case hon. Members are not breaking the law, but they are accessories after the fact; they ought never to have got on to the omnibus. Therefore, we are in a position in which every Member of this House and every Member of the other House is at present breaking the law, and in these circum- stances the police are grumbled at because they are not literally enforcing the law.

If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I. was not complaining that the police had not enforced the law as to a speed of 20 miles an hour; I was complaining that in cases of notoriously and flagrantly dangerous driving, no action is taken al all.

But when my hon. Friend was faced with the point that this situation had arisen under the existing law, he retaliated by saying that the police were not prosecuting, and I am answering that observation of his. I quite agree that the present proposal of my hon. Friend would make a material alteration in the existing law. He says that a speed limit of 20 miles an hour has been proved to be insufficient, and he suggests that the maximum speed limit shall be 35 miles an hour for light cars. Let the House examine the psychology of the motorist, of benches of magistrates, and of the police themselves. If you lay down a maximum speed of 33 miles an hour, the whole psychology of traffic control and dangerous driving will tend towards the idea that the man who is driving at 35 miles an hour is driving reasonably on the King's highway. For myself, I shrink from laying down such a principle in any Statute. If you get it into the head of the average motorist that Parliament says that driving at 35 miles an hour is a thing which Parliament normally contemplates, the motorist will feel that 35 miles an hour is a normal speed to be aimed at.

Speed is a factor in danger. Where I disagree with my hon. Friend is that he tends to make speed the only element of danger, or, at any rate, he would do that even if he did not intend to do it. Speed is a factor in danger. Five miles an hour going round a corner on the wrong side is dangerous and reckless driving; 10 miles an hour going through a little narrow village, with children coming out of schools and so on, may be dangerous and reckless driving, for which I would impose, possibly, severe penalties, according to the nature of the road and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, I want the motorist to feel that this is the case, but not merely by compulsion, because in the end this problem is not going to be solved so much by compulsion as by education, by the inculcation of a genuine social conscience. We do not think much of the man on the pavement who walks rudely into you and knocks into you. Nobody thinks much of him, and he does not think much of himself in two minutes' time. But, up to the present, a motorist who behaves rudely on the road does not feel that he has broken the social code. We must make the motorist feel that, when he is discourteous and inconsiderate on the road, he is not a British gentleman, and that we are not going to regard him as such. When we have reached that stage, by the inculcation of good conduct, we shall have done far more than by setting up a standard of 35 miles an hour, which may be a matter of the utmost danger.

Therefore, I am anxious that the minds of motorists shall be concentrated upon what is dangerous, reckless and careless in the circumstances of the case, and I think that the way along which we are going is the right way to attain that end. The penalties under our own Clauses are going to be severely increased, and I hope that in clear cases the magistrates will not hesitate to be severe in their penalties, and to disqualify dangerous drivers from driving. The Royal Commission itself, on this question of a speed limit of 35 miles an hour, said:

"The motorists will be encouraged to think, some of them, that, if they do not exceed the speed limit prescribed, they are driving with safety. Whereas 35 miles an hour may be quite safe under certain conditions, five miles per hour may be a danger in other cases."

I quite agree with that. My hon. Friend, the Member for West Bermondsey, says that I am illogical in putting a speed limit on the heavier type of motor car and not on the light car. Really, however, there is no analogy between the heavier type of motor car and the light private car. The heavy car, in case of an accident, has a much more severe impact, and the result of the accident on human life and on the other vehicle is more severe. Then the heavy car travelling at a high speed is less under control than the light car. There is also the point which I have mentioned before, but I make no apology for mentioning again, that the heavy vehicle travelling at a high speed does severe damage to the road.

I want to make this important announcement. There is an Amendment on the Paper which, I hope, will be of very great value. It will enable me to contribute out of the Road Fund towards the cost, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles for the use of the police as a mobile force. I quite agree that, if we abolished the speed limit, we should be criminal if we did not redouble our efforts to deal with the dangerous driver. Every decent motorist would wish us to do so. The pedestrian policeman is clearly at a disadvantage in dealing with the dangerous driver, therefore we are going to empower the police authorities, and indeed give them every encouragement to provide a mobile police force mounted on motor cycles or motor cars. This force will not be provided in any spirit of vindictiveness, nor will it be extravagantly large, but it must be sufficient for its purpose. In view of the additional cost to local authorities which will be involved, I am asking for power to contribute to the police force out of the Road Fund. There will also be the high-way code which we are going to publish, and for which we shall secure publicity, on the basis of which we shall conduct education not only among motorists but among pedestrians as well, who equally need it.

The view that some people hold that every motorist is a villain and every pedestrian a saint really will not do. There are faults on both sides, and it is no less the duty of any Minister of Transport or of Members of the House, or of the pedestrian Association, to which my hon. Friend belongs, to educate the pedestrian into reasonable conduct, because unless he is reasonable he endangers his own life and the life of the motorist and others as well. In short, we have to educate everyone up to a high standard of conduct and decency on the road. In these circumstances, in view of the administrative intentions on the part of the Government, I hope the House will emphatically support us in this course of action. It is not good that the laws of the country should not be enforced. If we have laws on the Statute Book, they ought to be altered or they ought to be enforced, and I am going to alter them and bring them into accord with common sense. The vote that we are going to take in view of its exceptional nature, will be a free vote of the House. I think that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Government is perfectly clear and definite in its own view and my definite advice to the House is to reject the Amendment.

I agree with the Minister that this proposal would be absolutely useless, on the hon. Member's own arguments. It will not stop people trying to make records on the roads. I have had some experience on a bench of magistrates which has probably fined more people than almost any other bench in the whole of the country, and I have come to the conclusion that fines for exceeding the speed limit are quite useless. It will not stop dangerous driving. Driving at 10 miles an hour may be much more dangerous than at 35. I do not think magistrates suspend licences as much as they should. The suspension of a licence is a much more potent weapon to prevent dangerous driving than fining people for exceeding the limit. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said in regard to civil police to control the dangerous driver. I think that it will be a very good thing. I would also draw attention to the fact that in having police travelling on the roads he will be taking police from their ordinary duties. If we continue the speed limit, we really ought to have a body of police specially retained by the Ministry of Transport for the purpose of duty on the roads so that county police are not taken away from their proper duties. If it was generally realised that the suspension of a licence is the most potent weapon to use against dangerous driving, there would be far fewer cases of dangerous driving and fewer accidents. I shall oppose the Amendment.

I am sure that the Minister must feel very gratified at having received the entire approval of the Opposition on this particular Amendment. I wish to support the Amendment, and I do so as a motorist, because I feel that we are running a very grave danger in abolishing the speed limit considering the very low standard of driving there is in this country. We are putting into the mind of every motorist that he can go at any speed he pleases and that he will simply be liable to be summoned for dangerous or reckless driving, if he is caught. The chances are that he will not be caught until he has had an accident. I have said in this House on a previous occasion that we are, speaking generally, the worst drivers in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I knew that I should raise a storm of objections when I repeated that statement, but I am going to read the opinion of a very much more famous motorist than anybody in this building. I am going to give the opinion of Mr. S. C. H. Davis, who is, perhaps, one of the most famous road racing drivers in the world. He is a road user. He says that 50 per cent. of the motorists in this country do not know the elementary rules of the road. [Interruption.] That is what he says. If it is a true statement, I submit that it is a very dangerous thing to allow this 50 per cent. of the people to go at any speed they please. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) has said, we have not been able to get any kind of test at all. I thought that some kind of test was going to be supported by at least one Hon. Member opposite.

The death-rate due to road accidents in this country is, I believe I am correct in saying, higher per vehicle than in any other country in Europe. Furthermore, 40 per cent. of the deaths are due to mistakes made by the drivers. That is a statement made in the Royal Commission's Report. The Royal Commission also reports that the 2 per cent. increase in deaths during the last two or three years is due to speed. That is with the 20 miles an hour limit which now exists. If we do away with the 20 miles an hour limit and we have no limit then we may expect a very much higher death roll. I agree with hon. Members who have said that a man can drive at 20 miles an hour and be more dangerous than another man driving at 40 miles an hour, but as there has been nothing provided in this Bill to make the standard of driving better in this country, I support the Amendment that we should have a speed limit until the standard of driving is better.

I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the last speaker. Those remarks would carry much greater weight with me if I did not happen to know that the hon. Member habitually breaks the law as it stands to-day, and will in all probability do so later.

The hon. and gallant Member says that I break the law. I am speaking of exceeding the speed limit. I am not talking now of anything else.

I repeat what I have said, that the remarks of the hon. Member would carry greater weight if I did not know that he habitually breaks the law as it stands, and will break it equally regularly if the speed limit is amended up to 35 miles an hour.

I wish flatly to contradict the statement of the hon. and gallant Member that I habitually break the speed limit law. I ask him to withdraw.

Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to pursue a suggestion on a general implication that the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Hall-Caine) is habitually breaking the law, without implicitly stating that it has only to do with speed. He might, at least, be fair.

I admit that I was referring only to exceeding the speed limit. As the House is anxious to go to a Division, I am not going to repeat the remarks made by the Minister of Transport, who has said exactly all that I wanted to say, but much better and more clearly than I could have hoped to say it, but I want to make a point in regard to something that was said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). He remarked that it was inconsistent to institute a speed limit for heavy motor traffic, whereas light motor traffic would be absolved from the speed limit. He said that if it was impossible to enforce a speed limit in regard to light motor traffic it was not possible to enforce the law in regard to heavy motor traffic. We have a means, to some extent, of checking the speed of the high speed motor buses. We have their time table to go upon, and I think it is most important that no time table should be issued which breaks the speed limit. Of course, at times the drivers may exceed the speed limit, if they are not held up. They have power enough in their engines to do 40, 50 or more miles an hour, and they may seek to make up time, but what we particularly do not want to have is a time table which will compel these drivers to drive at a speed which they very often realise is in excess of the speed at which it is safe to drive. In that way we have some means of enforcing the law.

In respect of less than five per cent. of the total.

At any rate, we have those means of enforcing it. As far as the light motor car is concerned, it is difficult to enforce any speed limit. If it is advertised that someone is going to try to drive from London to Edinburgh at an average speed of 60 miles an hour it is up to the police to take steps to secure a conviction and I hope they will do so. I congratulate the Minister of Transport on having adopted the idea of motor police to check dangerous driving in the streets. The stationary police officer is hopelessly handicapped, and after all we are only adopting a system which has been in force for many years on the Continent with a large measure of success. For some years they have had police in motor cars and on motor bicycles and although the speed is considerably higher on the Continent than it is in this country the average of accidents is not nearly so high. I hope, however, that the Minister of Transport will take steps to prevent what happens in America. If a police officer is out to secure a conviction he drives alongside the motor car tempting the driver to race. That is the custom of a police cop in the United States. If he wants to secure as many convictions as possible he deliberately tempts the law-abiding motor driver to exceed the speed limit. I shall vote against the Amendment because I do not think it will improve the safety of the roads; in the majority of instances it will make them more dangerous.

I desire to support the Amendment. I supported the hon. Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter) on this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. He is absolutely correct. The Minister of Transport has said that public opinion is in favour of the abolition of the speed limit. I submit that public opinion, as represented by the man in the street, has been absolutely coerced by the savage element which is now driving motor cars and making pedestrians, men, women and children, feel that they have absolutely no right on the highways at all. The Government on the most important question before them at the moment have had an excessive speed limit; they have not been able to do anything in the matter of unemployment. When it comes to facilities for killing human beings on the public streets the Minister of Transport says that the motorists are to have free scope; they are to have the roads to themselves. Those who are driving motor cars will be able to do just what they want. In the case of heavy vehicles there is a system of interlocking which can be used to save life when there is a danger of the vehicle running on to the footpath. In the case of light cars no such arrangement exists. The explanation given is that it is rather expensive; it is too expensive to lay out money on a system that would probably save human life.

This being the attitude of the Ministry and of a Labour Government, the time has come when the masses of the people, who have hitherto had legitimate rights on the public thoroughfares to walk in reasonable fashion and not to be chased along the streets like hens on a country lane, and are now hardly able to take a step off the pavement without the fear of this, that and the other coming along in a most disastrous way and playing havoc with them, straining their nerves beyond calculation—the time has come for the masses of the people to do as many of Gandhi's followers are doing in India, that is, to squat on the thoroughfares and hold up the traffic. [Laughter.] The matter is received with absolute levity. The answer to that levity was rightly given by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey. On a former occasion, some years ago, a right hon. Member of the Labour party was hauled up for charging the then Conservative Government with the responsibility for killing children by starving them. Now an hon. Member of the Labour party has challenged a Labour Government, his own Government, with the responsibility for taking human life on our public thoroughfares. He is absolutely correct.

The momentum of what is called public opinion has been actually manipulated and encouraged by those who occupy the position of a privileged class and who have said "Now we have at our disposal the means of cutting along in such a way that the railways are out of date and their speed is of no consequence. We have got our own special train." Ordinary people who ride on a bus do not have the settlement of the speed of the bus. Those ordinary people are now being dragooned by a Labour Government in a mater of this kind. [Interruption.] Let it be remembered that those who sit on the second bench are always highly appreciative of those who sit on the front bench. This is one of the most disastrous moves that could have been made by a Labour Government, but it appeals to an element that I know the Labour Government is more particularly-anxious to be appreciated by—the privileged class.

It is significant that, with all the strength of the backing that there is for the abolition of the speed limit, with all the sneers and the ridicule against those who desire a speed limit, a man who is representative of the medical profession should stand up here so nobly and so effectively to support this Amendment with powerful facts and figures, which are not in the slightest degree challenged. The Minister of Transport rides off on the assumption that under the motoring police force which he is going to have, everything will be put in order and everybody will conduct themselves in the best fashion, and we are told that Clause 11 lays down conditions as regards dangerous driving. I ask how are you going to apply the proof of dangerous driving? When a man or woman is killed on the road, an inquest is held, but, as far as prosecutions are concerned, they are scarcely known. Men and women are being done to death without any serious attention being paid to the business, and public opinion, as represented by the man in the street, regards the situation as hopeless.

This is the opportunity to-day of saying to the Government that the Members of this House who are not specially interested in running motors, but who are concerned about the protection of men, women and children, insist that the people, whether they are employed or unemployed, shall have reasonable facilities for the enjoyment of everyday life and shall be safeguarded from this peril which follows them at every step they take to-day. It is a tragedy that one cannot move even on the pavements of our streets without the fear of a motor car swinging in upon one. Little children, even children lying in perambulators, have been cut down in this way and the hearts of mothers have been broken by the terror of the situation. I submit that this is an issue upon which every man and women who is concerned with the public interest ought to support the hon. Member for Bermondsey. We ought to instruct the Government to put in a speed limit, and if they are a Government at all, they will see that it is obeyed. If a Labour Government has to confess, as the Minister of Transport confessed to-day, that they cannot do this or that, then I say let them get out of the job.

We have had two fanatical speeches from the other side, one from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) and the other from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) who has said that if the Government pass this Bill they will be aiding and abetting murder. I think we might now get down to the facts. We want to examine the question of whether we are to have a speed limit of 35 miles an hour for light motor vehicles, or no speed limit at all. If the hon. Member for Bermondsey will study the report of the Royal Commission he will find on page 49 that the percentage of accidents due to motorists is 39.1 while the percentage due to pedestrians, cyclists and others than motor drivers is 43.2. I point out that fact because I am endeavouring to show that all these accidents which he talked about, and which, incidentally, have taken place under a speed limit of 20 miles an hour, are not going to be altered in any way by establishing a speed limit of 35 miles an hour.

This is a very important Amendment, and I hope the House will support the