Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1933/nov/14/road-and-rail-traffic-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:09:08+00:00

Document:
ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.
§ Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain roads.
§ 25.—(1) The Minister, after consultation with the Transport Advisory Council, may by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or access to premises or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on all roads of any such class as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that it is desirable that such an order should be made, and may, from time to time, after such consultation as aforesaid, by order revoke, vary, amend, or add to the provisions of such an order.
§ A prohibition or restriction under this subsection may be imposed either generally or in relation to any class or description of vehicle, or to the use of vehicles for any purpose, or to the weight of vehicles, whether laden or unladen, and for the purposes of this subsection the Minister may classify roads in any manner he thinks fit, having regard to their character or situation, or the nature of the traffic to which they are suited, and may determine in what class any particular road shall be included.
§ (2) An order under the last foregoing subsection shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.
§ (3) Any person who drives a vehicle or causes or permits a vehicle to be driven in contravention of an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
§ Provided that an order so made by a council under either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the said section shall be of no effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister.
§ (5) The Minister, if he confirms any such order as aforesaid, may confirm it either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm an order until twenty-eight days at least have elapsed since the making of the order and, before confirming it, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the order and, if he thinks fit, may cause a public inquiry to be held.
§ (6) Regulations may be made for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders by a council under this section and in connection with the holding of inquiries in relation thereto, and the Second Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall cease to have effect.
had given Notice of a number of Amendments, including the omission of subsections (1), (2) and (3). The noble Earl said: The purpose of the Amendments that I have put down to this clause are, I think, best brought out if I am allowed to say a few general words upon the first Amendment. Your Lordships will see from this clause as it is drafted that line 3 on page 26 refers to the driving of vehicles; in line 11 you will see the expressions "description of vehicle" and "use of vehicles"; and in line 12 "weight of vehicles," and so on right through the clause. In fact this clause, as I endeavoured to point out during the debate on the Second Reading, is far wider in its application than that of any clause in the Bill. As it is drafted at the present moment it does not only refer to heavy motor vehicles, which I submit is clearly the intention of the Bill, but it goes far beyond that and includes every sort of vehicle that moves upon the road. It may not be necessarily a motor vehicle; it may be a bicycle, it may be a farmer's cart, it may be any vehicle as the clause is drawn.
259 I have put down Amendments first of all to omit certain subsections. My first Amendment proposes to do that. The reason for that is that we consider that the closing of roads is already sufficiently provided for under the Road Traffic Act. I think it is Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act that provides powers for the Minister, on the application of the local authority, to close certain roads, unclassified roads. That power has been very largely acted upon and all over the country your Lordships will no doubt have noticed signs and the symbol, a red disc, on the top of a post indicating that the secondary roads, unclassified roads, are closed to heavy motor vehicles. But this clause goes further than that. We say the powers already possessed by the Minister under the Road Traffic Act are sufficient. We also say that the best authority to make application for the closing of roads, in fact to decide whether roads ought to be closed or ought not, to any class of traffic, not only heavy motor traffic, is undoubtedly the local authority. The local authority knows best its various local needs, and it is by far the best judge of what sort of traffic is in the habit of using the roads, and whether the roads will stand up to it or not.
If so, we would far prefer the procedure under the Road Traffic Act and if, for some reasons which we do not at present quite understand, the Minister requires wider powers, then we say that those powers should certainly be restricted to heavy motor vehicles only. I very much hope that the Minister may see his way to make this small concession. I am a little encouraged in that hope because, when the noble Earl was replying to me in the Second Reading debate, I understood him to say quite clearly that the intention was that this clause should apply to heavy motor vehicles only and not to all classes of motor vehicles. Therefore perhaps he will be able to give us this little crumb of comfort. If he is able to do so I should not desire to press unduly my Amendment to leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3). I beg to move.
As the noble Earl has explained there are two 260 alternative Amendments on the paper. Therefore in order to safeguard the second Amendment I will put the question that subsection (1) as far as the word "of" in line 3 on page 26 stand part of the clause.
The noble Earl in moving this first Amendment has practically dealt with the whole of the Amendments he has put on the Paper in relation to this clause. I am afraid I am not in a position to grant the concession for which he hopes. I think he misunderstood me when I replied to him during the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill. What I said was that I thought that generally the intention was that powers should be used under this particular clause in order to prevent heavy motor vehicles from using certain types of road, but I did not say that it would be possible to insert any particular words in the Bill such as the noble Earl suggests, because I think it is necessary owing to certain other circumstances that the Minister should have completer powers in dealing with this particular question.
To apply myself to the first Amendment of the noble Earl, which proposes to leave out the first three subsections of this clause, the effect would be completely to remove the powers proposed to be conferred on the Minister to make general orders applicable over the whole of the country. The powers that the Minister is given under these subsections are that he may by order prohibit or restrict the driving of vehicles of any particular class or description, or used for a particular purpose—those words are important—on all roads of any class that may be specified in the order. These powers would enable the Minister in respect of the whole country to make orders almost entirely analogous to orders which are made locally by the local authority. The sort of thing that I envisage is that he might under this particular section provide that vehicles above a certain unladen weight should not be used on unclassified roads save for the delivery of a complete load to a particular destination. I am not suggesting that that is going to be done, but that is 261 the kind of thing that the Minister might want to do under the powers given by this clause.
To revert to the main point, I think it is generally conceded that there have been complaints in the past that the powers of local authorities to deal with the closing of particular roads to certain types of traffic are really not adequate to deal with the situation which we envisage. The machinery is undoubtedly clumsy and to try to make an order of this kind apply generally throughout the country with the powers that are now available would take a very long time. I quite frankly admit that the powers proposed to be conferred on the Minister are wide, but they have been drawn widely intentionally. There has undoubtedly been pressure brought to bear and opinions expressed to the effect that the present powers are not adequate and that something should be done in this respect. I would also add that the Salter Conference made a recommendation to that effect. In fact, the Salter Conference went in some ways a great deal further.
I want, however, to remind the Committee that there are very adequate safeguards in this clause. In the first place, the Minister before making an order has to consult the Transport Advisory Council. Undoubtedly in practice he would not make an order contrary to the advice he would receive. In the second place, there is the very effective safeguard that when the Minister proposes to make an order of this description the order has to be placed before both Houses of Parliament, and it does not become effective until each House has adopted an affirmative Resolution in respect of it. I maintain that that is a very strong safeguard indeed, to ensure that the Minister will not make orders which are obviously unreasonable. I think it is important that the Minister should have these powers and therefore I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
It have listened with great care to what the noble Earl has said. The noble Earl says that the reason why the Minister wants the clause to apply to all vehicles and not to heavy vehicles alone is that he wants more complete powers. I submit that he has not said one word to show why the Minister should have more complete powers, or to explain what he means when he says 262 he wants more complete powers. The noble Earl says he envisages the possibility of making an order that vehicles of a certain unladen weight should not be used over a certain class of road. Then why not say so in the Bill? I cannot understand that as a justification for seeking the very wide powers conferred by this clause. Again, the noble Earl says that the present powers are not adequate for making a change. He says that pressure has been brought to bear and that the present machinery is clumsy and does not work sufficiently rapidly. I have been in touch with all the interests affected by the Bill, and they have no knowledge of any particular pressure having been brought to bear upon the Government or of any particular view expressed to the effect that the present procedure is clumsy or inadequate.
The noble Earl says that the Salter Conference recommended this, but I am perfectly certain that I am right in saying that the Salter Conference never recommended that the labourer's cycle and the farmer's farm cart and all light motor vehicles should be brought within the ambit of this Bill. It is necessary, no doubt, to have powers to deal with very heavy motor vehicles and to deal with vehicles over a certain unladen weight, but I really cannot understand the proposal as it is drafted to deal with all vehicles of every description. The noble Earl has alluded to safeguards. He says the Minister has got to get a recommendation from the Transport Advisory Board and an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, but I submit that both those bodies are quite the wrong sort of bodies to have any say as to the closing of roads. I say that the people who are best qualified to do it are the local authorities. They are the people who know the local needs, and not this House or the other House or the Transport Advisory Board. I regret very much that the noble Earl cannot hold out very much hope. I am quite prepared to waive my first Amendment with regard to leaving out the first three subsections if he will make it clear that he will accept my Amendment which limits the powers to large or heavy vehicles.
I think the noble Earl is dealing with his second Amendment almost entirely. He con- 263 cedes that there is need for the Minister to have this kind of power as to heavy vehicles, but he complains that we do not insert words to that effect in the Bill. The reason why the word "vehicle" is used is that that word is always used when similar provisions are inserted in other Bills. It is important that we should retain this word "vehicle" as it stands in the Bill at present, for the sake of uniformity between this Bill and previous Bills, and I maintain that the safeguards are such that it would be impossible for the Minister to get through an order which was obviously unreasonable.
I will withdraw this Amendment, and concentrate on my second Amendment.
§ EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "of" ["the driving of vehicles"] to insert "large or heavy." The noble Earl said: The reason for this Amendment is quite obvious. The Government do not appear to have been moved by anything I have yet said. I would point out that the clause as drawn refers to all motor vehicles, and yet this is a Bill to deal with heavy vehicles. I cannot see why we should include light vehicles such as farm carts and so on. I submit that this Bill should refer to what it is intended to refer, and to nothing else.
I can only repeat what I have said already—namely, that this word "vehicle" is the word used in a similar clause in the Road Traffic Act. With regard to this particular Amendment, I would like to say that the words "large or heavy" are so indefinite that they could not be translated into practice.
I am ready to accept any suggestion.
I should like to ask whether the words in the Bill would, as has been suggested, cover horse vehicles as well as motor vehicles?
I think they would cover horse vehicles.
The Minister might easily prescribe by regulation what are heavy or large vehicles.
Might I suggest that the Minister might go so far as to say that he would insert the word "licensed," because, with all respect, I cannot see that subsection (2) is going to be any protection at all. The members of this House might have before them an order to close a road of the existence of which they had no knowledge.
It is a certain type of road.
If they ordered the closing of a type of road it might happen to include certain roads of which they had no knowledge, and it would mean the cutting off of such places completely.
The noble Earl asks for further consideration of this matter. I am bound to say that I cannot think he will receive any different reply on the Report stage. The matter has been very carefully looked into, and the Minister of Transport has considered it in all its bearings and aspects, and I am bound to say that I cannot find that the noble Earl has really made out any case for the point that he wishes to put forward. The powers are in the hands of the Minister, and I cannot see why he should quarrel with that. If I thought that those powers were going to be improperly used I should be bound to agree with him, but the Minister is hedged in by an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and I feel sure that the noble Earl must agree with me that it is better to place wide powers in the hands of the Minister, who is hedged round with proper restrictions, rather than to give the Minister no powers at all, and so arrive at a deadlock whenever powers are required.
§ EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "all roads of any such class as may be specified in the order," and insert "unclassified roads." The noble Earl said: Under this clause the roads which the Minister is now to have power to close to the farm carts, the bicycles, and everything else, may be roads "of any such class as may be specified in the order." The purpose of this Amendment is to make the clause deal merely with unclassified roads. The Minister has always said that the roads we ought to deal with, as far as heavy motor vehicles are concerned, are unclassified roads. Those are the roads which we want to protect, the roads which are not strong enough to take modern traffic. So I desire to prevent a possible Socialist Minister of the future closing all the main roads of the country.
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 60.
Denbigh, E. Carrington, L. Illingworth, L.
Howe, E. [Teller.] Chesham, L. Sandhurst, L.
Radnor, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Sempill, L.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) Mersey, V. Howard of Penrith, L.
Wimborne, V. Hutchison of Montrose, L.
Wellington, D. Durham, L. Bp. Mamhead, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Alvingham, L. Merthyr, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Amulree, L. Mildmay of Flete, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E. Askwith, L. Newton, L.
Onslow, E. Biddulph, L. Palmer, L.
Plymouth, E. Brougham and Vaux, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Poulett, E. Clwyd, L. Rennell, L.
Scarbrough, E. Danesfort, L. Rochester, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Denman, L.
Wicklow, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Selsdon, L.
Chaplin, V. Gainford, L. Stonehaven, L.
Esher, V. Gladstone of Hawarden, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Greville, L. Wharton, L.
§ "either generally, or in relation to any class or description of vehicle, or to the use of vehicles for any purpose." In view of the fact that the Minister has power to make these restrictions in relation to the use of vehicles for any purpose it is quite clear that from this point of view the question of whether a road is classified or unclassified is not really material.
had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), leave out "it is desirable that such an order should be made" and insert "any such vehicles cannot be used or cannot without restriction be used on such roads without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein or of other persons using the roads or of the buildings adjoining the roads or that such roads are unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles." The noble Earl said: I think the purpose of this Amendment is obvious, it is merely an attempt to try to aid public safety and to prevent unsuitable vehicles from using the roads. I do not wish, however, to move this Amendment.
"the power of making an order for the revocation, variation or amendment of any such order for the time being in force (whether made by the Minister or by the council) shall be exerciseable either by the Minister under subsection (3) of the said section or by the council: "Provided that no order made by a council under this subsection shall be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister. "Any references in the said Section forty-six to an order made thereunder, or to the council on whose application an order was made, shall be construed as respectively including a reference to an order made under this subsection and a reference to the council by which an order was made."
§ The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and the one which follows at page 27, line 13, are mainly due to a rearrangement of subsections (4) and (5). Apart from drafting Amendments consequent on rearrangement, the only effect of these two Amendments is to provide that both in the case of orders made by the Minister before the passing of the Bill, and in the case of orders confirmed by him after the passing of the Bill, the local authority shall be able to make an order varying or revoking an existing order, subject to confirmation by the Minister. Power is also conferred on the Minister to vary or revoke an existing order on his own initiative.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "in connection with the holding of inquiries in relation thereto, and the Second Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1930," and insert "the confirmation thereof and the holding of inquiries for the purposes of Section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by this section, and subsection (5) of the said Section forty-six and the Schedule therein referred to." The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) Where, before the coming into operation of this section, an application made by a council to the Minister under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, has not been dealt with by the Minister, he may, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, deal with that application and make an order thereon in the like manner and in accordance with the like procedure as if this Act had not passed. The noble Marquess said: This new subsection is needed to enable the Minister to deal with outstanding applications under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, under the provisions of that section and not under the provisions of the present clause.
§ Power to prohibit or restrict use of vehicles on certain bridges.
§ Provided that the weight specified in any such notice as the maximum weight of a vehicle shall not be less than five tons, and the weight so specified as a maximum axle weight shall not be less than three tons.
§ (2) The highway authority of any road leading to a bridge shall give to the bridge authority reasonable facilities for placing on the road any such notice as aforesaid.
(c) "placed in a proper position" means placed in such a position either on or near the bridge or on or near the road leading to the bridge as to be visible at a reasonable distance from the bridge to the drivers of vehicles approaching it.
§ (4) If, without the consent of the bridge authority, a vehicle is driven across a bridge in contravention of a notice so placed as aforesaid, any person who so drives it, or causes or permits it to be so driven, shall, without prejudice to any civil liability incurred by him in the case of damage being caused to the bridge, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
§ If in any proceedings under this subsection the prosecutor satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum weight specified in the notice, or that any axle weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum axle weight so specified, it shall lie on the defendant to prove that the weight of the vehicle or every axle weight of the vehicle, as the case may be, did not exceed such maximum weight or maximum axle weight.
§ (5) Any person or body of persons aggrieved by a restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, and any highway authority in whose area the bridge is situate, may at any time apply to the Minister for an order modifying or removing the restriction or prohibition.
§ (6) On receiving any such application as aforesaid, the Minister may cause the bridge to be inspected, and may require the bridge authority to give to his inspector such information as to its structure and condition, and such other facilities for his investigation of the circumstances as the bridge authority may be able to give and, after considering the report of his inspector and any representations made to him by the bridge authority, may, if he thinks proper, make an order modifying or removing the restriction or prohibition, or imposing different restrictions, and the bridge authority shall, within such time as may be specified in the order, cause notices to be erected complying with the order, and if the bridge authority fail to do so, the Minister may cause the notice complained of to be removed or varied or new notices to be erected so as to comply with his order, and may recover summarily as a civil debt from the bridge authority the expenses incurred by him in so doing.
§ (7) The provisions of this Act as to costs incurred by the Minister in connection with inquiries shall apply in relation to costs incurred by him in connection with inspections and investigations under this section, as if any such inspection or investigation were an inquiry to which the applicants and the bridge authority were parties.
§ (8) The Minister may at any time on an application made to him by the bridge authority, or on his own initiative, vary or revoke any order made by him under this section, if he is satisfied that it is proper so to do."
§ The noble Marquess said: The present clause is intended to take the place of Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with the restrictive notices which can be placed on a bridge by a bridge authority in cases where, in their opinion, the bridge is not strong enough to carry weights in excess of the limits specified in the notice. Traffic over a. large number of bridges maintained by railway companies, canal companies, drainage boards, etc., has been restricted in the past in this manner under the provisions of the earlier Locomotive Acts, the Motor Car Act, 1903, and orders made thereunder. Generally speaking, the provisions of these earlier Acts were swept away by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and Section 25 of that Act was intended to take the place of these earlier provisions. Section 25 of the Act of 1930, however, has proved unworkable, and it has never been possible for the Minister to bring it into operation. Negotiations proceeded for some time between officers of the Ministry of Transport, repesentatives of the Railway Companies' Association and the Canal Association, and representatives of local authorities, with a view to framing suitable notices under the provisions of the section. These negotiations proved ineffective, largely on account of the difficulty experienced in securing agreement among the interests concerned as to a form of notice, for erection on bridges proposed to be restricted, which could readily be understood by road users, and while conforming with the provisions of the Statute would not prove unnecessarily restrictive.
§ In the meantime the large majority of the notices placed on bridges under preceding enactments have become inoperative and bridge authorities have been unable to restrict the weight of traffic crossing weak bridges for the maintenance of which they are responsible. Powers to this end have been exercised by bridge authorities in the past and 271 have been regarded as essential to the proper discharge of their responsibilities with regard to the safety of their passengers and of their undertakings. As Section 25 of the Act of 1930 has proved unworkable, and any prospect of an agreement as to its amendment among the parties concerned is very unlikely, the Minister considers it his duty, after careful consideration of the representations which he has received, himself to propose to Parliament provisions on the subject which appear to him to be equitable as between the interests of bridge authorities on the one hand and the interests of the users of road transport on the other. One of the difficulties of framing suitable restrictive notices arises from the comparatively recent development of the six-wheeled vehicle of which the two rear axles lie close together and form a sort of bogie on which the major portion of the load is carried. It is obvious that from the point of view of the effect on the structure of a weak bridge it is necessary to regard the weight carried by these two axles as a single "axle weight." A definition of axle weight is therefore included in the clause as being the "weight transmitted by a vehicle to any transverse strip of the road surface 5 feet in breadth."
§ The clause preserves the right of bridge authorities to erect notices restricting the weight and axle weight of vehicles on weak bridges. The Motor Car Act, 1903, and the orders made thereunder provide for an appeal by any aggrieved party against a restriction placed on a bridge, on the ground that the bridge was capable of carrying greater weights than those specified in the notice. The Minister has been impressed by the fact that this provision with regard to an appeal has proved ineffective. There is no record in the Department of any appeal having been lodged against the provisions of these orders. This appears to be largely due to the fact that the onus of proving that the bridge was capable of carrying a greater weight would rest on the appellant, who obviously in the nature of things would have no access to the working drawings, specifications and other data in the absence of which it would be difficult for such an appeal to be substantiated.
§ The new clause remedies this defect by providing that the Minister on receiving an application by an aggrieved party may 272 cause the bridge to be inspected, and if he is satisfied, after considering the representations of the bridge authority and any information supplied by them, that the bridge is capable of carrying greater weights than those specified in the notice, he may make an order varying the maximum limits of weights accordingly. The Minister thinks it right and is prepared to assume the responsibility that would rest upon him under the clause. He feels sure that he can rely on the exercise of proper judgment on the part of bridge authorities in the erection of suitable notices and on the part of the road transport interests in the selection of any cases which should in their opinion form the subject of an application for revision. Exception has been taken to the fact that the clause provides that after the prosecutor has made out a prima facie case of contravention of the terms of a restrictive notice the onus shall then rest on the defendant of proving that the weights of his vehicle on the particular occasion in question did not exceed the limits fixed by the notice. This provision is in fact less onerous to the defendant than the corresponding provisions of the orders under the Act of 1903 and of Section 25 of the Act of 1930. The requirement does not seem to the Minister to be unreasonable, particularly in view of the provisions with regard to the keeping of records of laden weight, and so on, contained in Clause 14 of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ EARL HOWE moved to amend the proposed new clause by inserting in subsection (1), after "each end of the bridge", the words "and at the principal junctions of roads leading to the bridge". The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that where a notice is put up intimating that a bridge will not be capable of bearing more than a certain load, the notice should also be placed at junctions of roads approaching the bridge, so as to give drivers a chance of choosing their routes. No doubt so far as the main routes are concerned, the lorries, which chiefly go up and down, probably working a regular line, know the routes very well, but it may easily be that a number of lorries or public-service vehicles affected by an order will not 273 necessarily know the route at all, and it might be extremely inconvenient, in fact it might almost be a source of danger, if those vehicles get to a bridge they cannot use where there is no turning and perhaps no easy place for them to turn round. You may get a vehicle arriving at a bridge round the corner and the driver finding a notice round the corner saying that it cannot go over the bridge as it is too heavy. The driver has to try and get back. He might have to reverse a long distance along the road which, as your Lordships will appreciate, would be very dangerous with a big vehicle such as a motor coach or a lorry, or the driver might have to try and turn round in order to avoid that. If possible, we want to have notices put up so that the driver can get plenty of warning that there is a bridge ahead. I beg to move.
The wording of the subsection in this respect follows the wording of Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which the new clause is intended to supersede. It is undoubtedly desirable in some cases that advance notices should be placed on a road leading to a bridge on which a weight restriction is imposed. It would not be competent for the bridge authority to erect such a notice on the highway unless it is also the highway authority. In cases where the bridge authority is not the highway authority and the erection of an advance notice is desirable, it should be possible for the bridge authority to make arrangements with the highway authority for the erection of the necessary notice. I think this really covers the point which the noble Earl has made. He certainly has put forward reasons which, with his experience, naturally carry great weight in your Lordships' House, but I am inclined to think that under the provisions of this Bill the dangers which he anticipates need not arise.
Can we be assured that it will be the policy of the Ministry of Transport to see that such notices are erected wherever it is possible danger 274 may arise? It may not be so in every case; probably there will be a great many bridges where there will be some turning point or some place where the driver can easily turn his vehicle round, but that may not be so in all cases. The Ministry of Transport have full information of that sort of thing, and if they could assure us that it will be their policy to see that such notices are erected I should be quite satisfied with that assurance.
I can give the noble Earl that assurance, but it might be advisable to put in extra words if the noble Earl feels very strongly about it. I suggest that the restrictions and the powers which are contained in this Bill are sufficient, but I would not stand in the way of the noble Earl if he wanted an Amendment of this description: and if the highway authority so require, the bridge authority shall erect warning notices in the prescribed form at the principal junctions of roads leading to the bridge. I do not know if those words would fulfil the object the noble Earl has in mind.
They would be quite satisfactory, and I will move them in that form.
It comes at the end of subsection (2) and perhaps the noble Marquess will move it there.
§ EARL HOWE moved, after "each end of the bridge" in subsection (1), to insert "and readily distinguishable by day or night." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It is to try and ensure that the notices are distinguishable at night. Your Lordships will no doubt have seen many notices erected by local authorities where the signs are made of small reflectors. It is a proprietary article, and I do not wish to advertise it in this House, but it is possible to erect such signs which do not involve the lighting of lamps but which reflect the rays of the head-lights or the lights of the vehicle in such a manner as would probably go far to avoid a possible danger. My own impression is that this Amendment probably ought to come after the 275 Amendment, if the Minister agrees to it, which the noble Marquess has just indicated.
The main object of this Amendment is to require that restrictive notices on bridges should be illuminated at night. This would in many cases, probably the majority, be quite impracticable as many of the weak bridges on which notices will need to be placed are in remote country areas where no artificial lighting is available. It would be unreasonable to require that artificial lighting shall be provided for the purpose. I may point out that no such requirement is in force in respect of restrictive notices on roads erected by highway authorities under the provisions of Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I therefore think that it is quite impossible to carry out the desire which the noble Earl has in mind.
I think the noble Marquess is under a misapprehension. I do not contemplate signs with artificial light. What I contemplate are what are known as catchlight signs. They are reflective in character and reflect a vehicle's headlights. There really is substance in this Amendment because if you get a vehicle going along a road on a dark night the driver does not necessarily know that he is coming to a weak bridge. I want to avoid the vehicle getting to the bridge and having to try to turn—a procedure which might be of great danger, if the vehicle happened to be a motor coach, to the passengers carried in it, or a danger to others if it happened to be a lorry or sonic other heavy vehicle. I also want to avoid the possibility of vehicles going over bridges which are not strong enough to bear them. Therefore I suggest that the matter might receive further consideration. I shall be quite content if the noble Marquess can say that the Ministry will give attention to the point and, where it is desirable, encourage the use of catchlight signs.
Catchlight signs, that is the idea.
Powers to this effect are already available as notices have to be in the form prescribed by the Minister.
§ EARL HOWE moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to substitute "eight" for "five". The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite obvious. It is to bring the weight limit up to a figure more in accordance with modern practice. The weight limit prescribed by Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act was five tons. I know that I shall probably be told that no matter what modern transport has done bridges have not been strengthened and that, therefore, the weight cannot be increased. At the same time it must be recognised that a difficult position is caused by weak bridges. Up and down the country one finds these weak bridges, many of them on main arterial roads. I have some figures to show the present position. On the Liverpool-Birmingham road there are ten bridges with warning notices already in existence. On the Bristol-Birmingham road there are two, on the Bristol-London road six, on the London-Birmingham road eight, on the Great North Road four and on the Derby-Nottingham road two. In the London Passenger Transport Board's area there are no fewer than 485 bridges and of these 105 have notices already in existence and would be unable to carry a London motor omnibus. Some of these bridges are on some of the most important main roads and I mention these figures to show the extent of the problem with which we are dealing in the case of these bridges. Probably it is not possible for the Minister to give way on this particular point, but I think that what I have said shows that Parliament ought to do its best to encourage the Ministry of Transport to deal with the question of weak bridges.
§ After all, the road transport industry pays very large sums in taxation. I think it is only reasonable to expect that the Government, through the medium of the Road Fund, should divert some of that money to the strengthening of weak 277 bridges. I think I am correct in saying that at the present moment the Government can only move on the application of a bridge authority and bridge authorities have been very slow to move. Probably the idea at the back of their minds has been that if they were slow to move the Government might be induced to make a further contribution to the strengthening of bridges. Whether that is so or mot, I think it is clear from the figures I have quoted that it is urgently necessary that the Government should do something effective to secure the strengthening of weak bridges at any rate upon the more important arterial roads. There is an enormous volume of traffic going over the roads of the country to-day which probably could go in no other way. I know that that statement will probably be discredited by those who are advocates of the railways, but the fact remains that we have an enormous amount of traffic going over the roads and that in time of crisis we might be entirely dependent upon that form of traffic. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the words used by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, yesterday when he referred to what was done by motor lorries during the General Strike. In all cases of national emergency it is of the utmost importance that bridges should be strong enough to carry the traffic. Therefore I move this Amendment, though I am afraid that there is not much hope that the Minister will give way.
The noble Earl has raised a very important question, and I can assure him that the representations he has made will be passed on by me to the proper quarter. This Amendment may be taken in conjunction with the one which follows. The object of these two Amendments is to substitute eight tons for five tons as the weight below which no restriction can be imposed by a bridge authority as regards the total weight of the vehicle, and four tons for three tons as regards axle weight. The limits of five tons for the total weight of the vehicle and three tons for the axle weight have obtained ever since the making of the original orders under the provisions of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and 278 these were ordained as the weights which the bridges could carry. The noble Earl said that bridges should be strengthened and I am bound to say that I am not at all in disagreement with him in that suggestion, but I think he will recognise that the obligations on those who have erected bridges under statutory powers are, normally, to maintain the bridge to the standard required at the time the powers were given, and there is no justification for increasing these obligations by substituting higher weight limits in the present Bill. For that reason the noble Earl has anticipated the result quite correctly: I am unable to accept his Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ EARL HOWEmoved to add to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause: Provided further that the notice shall specify heavier maximum weights and greater maximum speeds for vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres than for vehicles not so fitted. The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It is to provide that account shall be taken of whether or not a vehicle is fitted with pneumatic tyres. I remember once, when I was going from London to Liverpool, stopping by the side of the road and watering the lorries pass. It was very interesting not only to see but to feel the difference between vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres and those with solid tyres. Every time a vehicle fitted with solid tyres went past the effect at the side of the road was that of a small earthquake. The vibration communicated to the grass verges on the sides of the road was most extraordinary, even though in many cases the vehicle was unladen, whereas in the case of a fully-laden vehicle fitted with pneumatic tyres there was no such vibration. Your Lordships are probably well acquainted with the matter and have noticed the fact for yourselves on many occasions, and I think it is perhaps reasonable that we should be allowed to have a slightly increased weight factor in cases where vehicles are fitted with pneumatic tyres.
It is true that the impact on the bridge 279 structure is less in the case of a vehicle fitted with pneumatic tyres than in the case of a vehicle travelling at the same speed and fitted with solid tyres. It is impracticable, however, to differentiate between vehicles according to the nature of their tyres. The notices which will need to be erected will be sufficiently complicated in any case without this additional complication. It may be pointed out, further, that all new motor cars and heavy motor cars are now required to be fitted with pneumatic tyres. Solid tyres are being less and less used and before long will cease to be fitted to ordinary commercial vehicles. Solid tyred vehicles such as locomotives are restricted in speed and this factor will be taken into account in estimating the weights which a bridge is capable of carrying.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved, at the end of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, to insert "and if the highway authority so require the bridge authority shall erect warning notices in the prescribed form at the principal junctions of roads leading to the bridge." The noble Marquess said: I beg to move.
§ EARL HOWEmoved to insert the following subsection in the proposed new clause: (3) Before placing a restriction or prohibition under this section on the use of a bridge, the bridge authority shall give to the Minister twenty-eight days' notice of its intention so to do with particulars of the restriction or prohibition, and the Minister shall cause a list to be kept of all restrictions or prohibitions which have been placed on the use of bridges under this section and the list shall be open to inspection by any person.
§ The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one on which I have an assurance from the noble Marquess that he will be able to accept it, but it had to be discussed last night in some haste, and I wondered whether I might be allowed to propose an Amendment to it, or to move it in a slightly amended form. The 280 reason for the Amendment is that, as the Bill is drafted, if a notice is put up it becomes operative, unless the road people affected appeal to the Minister, in which case the Minister is to order an inquiry. It was felt that this was bound to take a certain amount of time, and in the meantime the bridge would, of course, remain closed. I have given some figures with regard to the main arterial roads, which show your Lordships how important this might be to the road transport industry of the country, and it was felt that if due notice could be given to the road transport industry of the intention of the bridge authority, and of the views of the Minister, then the difficulty would be got over.
§ There is one thing that the Amendment as drafted does not do. It does not provide that notice of the intention should be given to the road transport interests. T want to ask the noble Marquess whether, if he is able to accept this Amendment, he would, at the same time, be able to secure that due notice shall be given to the road transport interests affected? If he is able to give a definite assurance that the Minister will give such notice in all cases, then I do not think that the Amendment I should otherwise desire to move would become necessary. If, on the other hand, he is not able to give that assurance, I might want to put in an Amendment. Before I do so I would like to hear what the noble Marquess has to say.
The Amendment is one which I am glad to be able to accept and incorporate in the Bill. The noble Earl has explained the Amendment, and I am certainly in a position to give an assurance that the Minister would take steps to inform the industry of any preliminary notice he may receive from the bridge authorities.
§ EARL HOWEmoved, in subsection (3) (b) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "five feet" and insert "three feet six inches." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one of the greatest possible importance to the industry. It 281 is, in fact, the point which was mentioned by the noble Marquess just now when talking about six-wheeled vehicles. Your Lordships are no doubt acquainted with the expression "transverse strip of roadway" for the calculation of axle weight, and it seriously affects the six-wheeled vehicle. The distance between the rear axles of all six-wheelers is less than 5 feet, the largest being between 4 feet and 4 feet 2 inches, so that in all cases the weight distributed over the two axles will be reckoned under the clause as being carried on one axle. This raises a question of the greatest possible importance to the road transport industry. All the vehicles on the road whether six-wheelers or four-w heelers are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations.
§ The road transport interests consider this matter to be of such importance that they appointed a deputation which the Minister graciously received at the Ministry, to lay the point which is involved before him. The road transport interests were told that the reason why 5 feet had been selected was because of an engineering point connected with the thrust of the road wheels upon the road surface and upon the arch of the crown of the bridge as the vehicle leaves the bridge, and most of the existing bridges would not be capable of bearing the stress. It is an engineering point as to whether the thrust of a vehicle does operate diagonally against the crown of the bridge, or whether it does not. I have taken some trouble to find out what the opinion of competent authorities really is, and I have got an opinion here from no less an authority than Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners.
§ Roughly it comes to this, that on a short bridge of 7 foot span the stress produced by bogies with axles at 3 feet 6 inch spacing and 7½ tons axle loads is only 10 per cent. worse than that produced by 8 ton single axles at permitted spacings, 5 feet and over. On a still shorter bridge of 5 feet 3 inches span the stress produced by the bogie is no greater than that produced by other and permitted loadings. On bridges over 14 feet span a single bogie with 7½ ton axles and 3 feet 6 inch spacings produces less shear at the abutments than other and permitted loadings. They say that the con- 282 tention that a weight supported by a strip of the roadway 5 feet in width would have very nearly the same effect on the bridge as a similar weight carried on a single axle is decidedly arbitrary. I naturally am not competent to decide as between experts, but it does appear that further consideration ought to be given to this point and to the necessity for increasing the existing strip of 2 feet to 5 feet. We have suggested in the Amendment 3 feet 6 inches, which appeared a reasonable compromise. I do not know whether the noble Marquess is prepared to deal with this rather technical point to-day. If the Minister would prefer a little more time to give consideration to this matter then I should be prepared not to move this Amendment and to bring it up again on Report. I do feel that there should be a little more consideration of the 5-foot strip before it definitely appears in the Bill.
The noble Earl has given us a great many technical details of a very abstruse character. His Amendment deals with the case of modern six-wheeled vehicles the two rear axles of which form a kind of bogie which to some extent assists in the distribution of the weight and the reduction of impact. The two axles, centre to centre, are normally rather more than 3 feet 6 inches apart but less than 5 feet. The definition of "axle weight" in the clause has been intentionally so framed as to cause the weight borne by the two rear axles of a six-wheeled vehicle to be regarded as a single axle weight. The Minister is advised that, particularly in the case of bridges with weak cross girders and single arch bridges with a large span, the effect of a weight borne on the two rear axles of a six-wheeled vehicle is nearly the same as that of the same weight carried by a single axle. It may be pointed out that, if the Amendment were accepted and the two rear axles of a six-wheeled vehicle were regarded for the purposes of this clause as separate axles, the only effect would be that bridge authorities would feel compelled to put on their bridges more restrictive notices than would be necessary under 283 the provisions of the clause as it stands, as they would be bound to contemplate the possibility of six-wheeled vehicles crossing their bridges. In many ways, therefore, the Amendment would defeat the very objects which the movers have in view. If axles are normally 10 feet or more apart and the carrying capacity of the bridge is based on this assumption, it is clear that some provision must be made with regard to vehicles where axles are brought so close together as to have substantially the same effect so far as the bridge structure is concerned as a single axle. I think your Lordships will realise that there are really two very different opinions on this very highly technical subject, and it would be only right for me to say to the noble Earl that I will mention this matter to the Ministry of Transport and ask them to give further consideration to so highly important a point.
I wish to thank the noble Marquess for his answer and I would like to hand him the opinion I have had from Messrs. Gibb, which I think is of very great importance and I think the Department should have it before them.
on behalf of Lord Clwyd, moved, at the end of subsection (3) to insert "and for the purpose of the provisions of this section relating to axle weight an articulated vehicle shall be deemed to be a single vehicle." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really follows upon what has just been said. An articulated vehicle is defined by the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, as meaning "a heavy motor car or a motor car with trailer drawn thereby which is so constructed and by partial super-imposition attached to the motor vehicle that a substantial part of the weight of the trailer is borne by the motor vehicle." It appears that it is possible that the clause which has just been passed can really be evaded by putting on, for the purpose of going over a bridge, two or more wheels which can be taken off afterwards. They might not be useful for turning a corner but they would be for going over these bridges. Instead of their being two vehicles they really are one vehicle and the advantage naturally is that it would not fall under 284 the subsection that we have just passed. As the noble Marquess is going to consider the Amendment we have just been considering, will he be good enough to consider the possibility of dealing with this also?
I understand that this Amendment would allay certain fears on the part of bridge authorities. We regard the Amendment as unnecessary, but I have been instructed to say on behalf of the Ministry that on some points connected with the clause the Amendment might be accepted subject to a definition of "articulated vehicle" being added to Clause 30 on Report. An articulated vehicle consists of a tractor portion with a super-imposed trailer so constructed that the trailer provides the loading platform, though part of the weight is borne by the tractor portion. For purposes of regulation and administration the combined vehicle is regarded as a heavy motor car drawing a trailer. What the bridge authorities are afraid of is that a type of vehicle might be evolved where an axle of the trailer portion of the articulated vehicle might be within five feet of the rear axle of the tractor portion. As the tractor and trailer portions are for purposes of regulation regarded as separate vehicles the two axles, though within less than 5 feet of each other, would not be axles of the same vehicle and would, therefore, not be caught by the definition of "axle weight" in the clause. The type of vehicle which the bridge authorities have in mind, I am given to understand, does not exist and it is difficult to imagine that it would ever be a practical commercial proposition. But if the noble Lord desires the Amendment to go into the clause it would be accepted subject to what an articulated vehicle means being inserted in Clause 30.
I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. I am quite satisfied with that definition being made. It seems to me almost exactly the same thing as has been in use under the regulations of 1931, and also, it would 285 appear, under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930.
Might I say how very glad I am that the noble Marquess stated that the Minister of Transport will consider words which will meet the difficulty this Amendment was intended to meet? I felt when I first saw the Amendment that the words proposed to be inserted might not be altogether acceptable, but as to the real grievance which it is intended to meet I think there is no doubt. I was therefore very glad to hear that the noble Marquess will consider other words at a later stage.
§ EARL HOWEmoved, after subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, to insert: () The power to make an order under Section 3 of the Bridges Act, 1929, to provide for the reconstruction or improvement or maintenance of a bridge or road carried thereby or the approaches thereto shall he exerciseable by the Minister without au application from the owner of the bridge or the highway authority concerned in any case where it appears to the Minister on an application being made to him under subsection (5) of this section that the bridge being a bridge carrying a Class I or Class H road is insufficient to carry the vehicles ordinarily in use on that road.
§ The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Minister powers to compel bridge authorities to undertake the strengthening of bridges. At the present moment, as I tried to explain to your Lordships just now, the Minister unfortunately cannot make an order except on the application of the highway authority, and very often highway authorities are slow to move. Consequently little use is made of the power in the Bridges Act of 1929, although there are many bridges which urgently require strengthening or reconstruction. The road transport users submit that if the Minister carries out an investigation under this clause arid if he should find a bridge on Class I or Class II road forming part of an important traffic road, and the reconstruction of this bridge is urgent, then the Minister should be entitled on his initiative to make such an order. For instance, on the Great North Road there are no fewer than six bridges upon which notices were erected under the old law, and if the notices are to be renewed under this clause we submit that the 286 bridges ought to be reconstructed immediately, and that the proceeds of the tax on motor vehicles should be sufficient for this work. I hope, therefore, the Minister will be able to give consideration to this point.
The noble Earl has accurately stated the case under the provisions of Section 3 of the Bridges Act, 1929. The Minister, on the application of a bridge authority or of a highway authority, may make an order for the reconstruction or improvement of a weak or dangerous bridge. Section 6 of the Act provides that, failing agreement, the apportionment of the cost between the bridge authority and the highway authorities concerned may be determined by arbitration. The Amendment proposes that the Minister should be able to make an order to this effect on his own initiative, in case of bridges on Class I and Class II roads. This implies that the Minister would be in a position to impose expenditure on public bodies without any application on their part for his intervention. He might even do so without offering any assistance from the Road Fund. I think your Lord-snips will agree that such a position cannot be accepted. It is true that the authorities concerned have made little use of the provisions of the Bridges Act, 1929. But with the return of more favourable financial conditions and increased no-operation between the parties, concerned, it may be hoped that the work of reconstructing weak bridges on the more important routes will be expedited. I regret in the circumstances I am unable to accept the Amendment.
The prospect raised by the noble Marquess for the road transport industry of the country may in certain circumstances be a serious one. I am sure that the Minister and the noble Marquess will agree that the reconstruction of weak bridges is urgently necessary, but if there is nothing else to spur things on than hope I am afraid we may have to wait for the Greek Kalends before we shall see any improvement in bridge reconstruction in this country. Even if the noble Marquess cannot accept 287 this Amendment I do hope the Ministry of Transport will do all that it can, and press a little more than it has done in the past and try and spur on local authorities. Surely this is a matter which would entail a certain amount of employment for people who are not perhaps in work? It might then be commended for the relief of unemployment and that sort of thing. At any rate, whatever way it is done, I hope the Minister of Transport will do everything possible to secure an improvement in the bridges on the more important roads of the country, which is, of course, the purpose of the Amendment.
§ EARL HOWEhad given Notice to move to add to the proposed new clause: () The Minister may cause a list or lists to be prepared of all bridges in respect of which notices have been placed by the bridge authority under the powers of this section showing the specified weights and specified speeds applicable to each bridge and other particulars stated in the notices and any person shall be entitled to be furnished with a copy of such list or a portion thereof on payment of a reasonable fee for the making of the copy.
§ The noble Earl said: The real meaning and intention of this Amendment is obvious but I am not sure that this Amendment is really necessary in view of the Amendment which the noble Marquess has already accepted to subsection (3). If the noble Marquess tells me this Amendment is not necessary in view of that I will not move.
§ On Question, the original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Amendment of 20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43, s. 19.
§ 26. Subsection (3) of Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall be amended by substituting for the words "or on a joint application by such organisations, representative of employers and workpeople in the industry, as the Minister of Labour may certify to be proper bodies to make such an application" the words "or on an application by any such organisation, representative of employers or workpeople in the industry, as the Minister of Labour may certify to be a proper body to make such an application."
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to insert at the beginning of the clause: 288 (1) For the purposes of those provisions of subsection (1) of Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (as varied or amended by any order or subsequent enactment) which relate to the number of consecutive hours for rest which a driver is to have in any specified period, time during which the driver is hound by the terms of his employment to obey the directions of his employer, or to remain on or near the vehicle, or during which the vehicle is at a place where no reasonable facilities exist for the driver to rest away from the vehicle, shall be deemed not to be time which the driver has for rest.
§ The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that a driver's period of rest, which is ten consecutive hours in the twenty-four, prescribed under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930, shall be taken, where reasonable facilities exist for him to rest, away from the vehicle. It is the practice of the less reputable operators to send out a heavy vehicle with two men who take it in turn to drive, the man who is not driving taking his period of so-called "rest" on the vehicle. Again men are often expected to take what rest they can in the vehicle itself and flagrant cases of contravention of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1930 have come before the Courts. A number of serious accidents have been caused by the excessive fatigue of drivers operating under such conditions. The matter was discussed at some length in the debates on the present clause in the House of Commons, and my right honourable friend the Minister undertook to consider whether an Amendment could be put into the Bill to make it clear that the minimum period for rest laid down in the section was intended to be taken under conditions that would enable the driver to obtain necessary sleep and refreshment.
The next two Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Page 27, line 17, leave out from the first ("of") to ("for") in line 18 and insert ("the said Section nineteen shall have effect as if").
§ Amendment of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43, s. 19, as to variation in hours of duty and periods of rest. .The power conferred upon the Minister by subsection (3) of Section nineteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to vary, by order, the periods of time prescribed in the said Section nineteen shall, subject to the provisions of the said subsection, be extended to include power to vary, by order, the said periods of time in accordance with any agreement arrived at between an employer and an organisation representative of workpeople in the industry, provided such agreement receives the approval of the Industrial Court in respect of persons who are parties to such agreement: Provided also that in the event of such an order being made the duty schedules or records provided for in such agreement setting forth the hours of labour and periods of rest of the persons employed in an undertaking shall be deposited with the Traffic Commissioners in the area in which the licences in respect of the vehicles operated are issued.
§ The noble Earl said: At the time Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act was introduced it was realised that it was in the nature of an experiment. Definite periods, designed to stop the worst abuses of long periods of driving and inadequate periods of rest, were laid down for maximum driving time and minimum time for rest. It was generally recognised that it would be difficult to keep these limits in all cases, and accordingly provision was made whereby general applications could be made by organisations representative of employers and workpeople in the industry for a variation of the periods of time laid down in the section. In 1931 two applications were made for variations of the periods of time in the section, one by organisations of employers and the trade union in road goods transport, the other by the organisations of the employers and the trade unions in road passenger transport. Variations were agreed to for both sides which became operative in April, 1931, and were to continue in force for two years. There was, therefore, in April, 1933, two years experience of the working of Section 19 with the variations.
§ Just prior to the expiration of the variations, a joint conference between the employers' associations and the trade unions in road goods and road passenger transport was held. The conference represented the Omnibus Owners' Association, the Municipal Tramways and Transport Association, the Tramways, Light Railways and Transport Association, the Motor Coach Hirers' Association, the Commercial Motor Users' Association, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union. The views of this conference were conveyed to the Ministry of Transport and also to the Ministry of Labour. On the goods side no agreement was reached, and no further application was made for any variation in the limits of the time set out under Section 19. On the passenger side, however, the whole position was carefully reviewed. Those represented at the conference were of the opinion that while certain variations might case the position it was almost impossible by orders made by the Minister to secure variations adapted to meet the differing circumstances of passenger transport undertakings throughout the country. The conference, therefore, decided to seek an interview with the Ministry.
§ At that interview a suggestion was made that some alternative machinery should be instituted for dealing with the problem, and a request was made that the Minister should take steps to secure power to implement agreements which had been made between representatives of organised labour and repesentatives of undertakings engaged in road passenger transport, subject to such review as he might deem necessary to ensure that the public interest is served and public safety is protected. The form of those agreements would have relation only to undertakings covered by these agreements and would not be of general application. By this means it would be possible to arrive at reasonable variations to meet the varying conditions of road passenger operation. Neither the responsible and reasonable operator nor the trade unions are desirous of arrangement which would, in any way, militate against public safety. They are, however, concerned with the way the section, even with variations, operates.
§ The concern of the Transport and General Workers' Union is that the sec- 291 tion has meant the reduction in the number of what are called "straight" duties, and of a substantial increase in the number of broken duties with long and objectionable spread-overs. Men are called upon for a substantially longer day for considerably less payment than was previously the case. Moreover, the breaks which now take place are at awkward periods and often at places which are a long distance away from a man's home. In those cases the duties are not so good from the public safety position as the straight duties. The trade agreements to which I have referred would provide roughly for a forty-eight-hour week of six days and in that respect would be more favourable, taking the week, from the public safety standpoint than the periods set out in the section. It would be possible to prepare a schedule under agreements which from the men's side would be a good schedule. It might cover a number of weeks; an overwhelming number of the duties would be well within the limits laid clown in the section, but a few may be outside it in one way or another. To bring these into conformity with the section would spoil the whole schedule and in the main bring in a big percentage of split duties. Under these conditions the men feel that they have a real grievance, for the conditions have been made substantially worse.
§ On the passenger side, it should not be difficult to apply this policy. The agreements when made could be submitted to the Industrial Court for protection for the public. There could be a further check in that the schedules which the men are to work could be deposited with the Traffic Commissioners, thereby providing a double check in the public interests. If the method I have suggested were adopted it would ensure a more effective safeguard for the public than any which obtains at the present time. The trade unions with their check upon schedules where they have agreements would be able to see that these were observed. Where no agreements exist the section should be rigidly applied, for in the absence of such agreements there could only be reference to the limits of time set out in the section. The range, therefore, over which inspection was necessary would be narrowed. I am satisfied that if these proposals are accepted the public safety would not be 292 endangered, the employers and those engaged by them in schedule building would be able to provide better turns of duty for the men, while those employed on public service vehicles would, through those improved turns of duty be much more satisfied than is the case to-day. I beg to move.
This Amendment was brought forward in another place, fully discussed and, by leave, withdrawn. The wording of the clause is somewhat obscure but the intention, I take it, from what the noble Earl has said, is that any agreement as to wages and conditions of employment arrived at between employers and a trade union may be submitted to the Minister as an "application" under subsection (3) of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and if approved by the Industrial Court may be made the subject of an order by the Minister of Transport varying the periods of time of driving prescribed in the section. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for making the procedure as to "variation" under Section 19 of the Act of 1930, more flexible. A proposal on the lines of this new clause cannot however be accepted. It would in effect enable the two sides in the industry to substitute for the requirements laid down by Parliament the provisions of any sectional agreement which a trade union might make with a single employer or a group of employers. Apart from the objection on principle to such a procedure, so great a variety of conditions would be introduced that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to tell in any particular case whether a man was observing the law or not. Any variation of the maximum periods of driving and of the minimum periods of rest laid down in the Statute itself must be of universal application and cannot be subject to sectional agreements of the character indicated. For those reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment and extension of 20 & 21 Geo. 5, c. 43, s. 93.
§ 27.—(1) Where any matter is referred to the Industrial Court under Section ninety- 293 three of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which relates to wages and conditions of employment) the Court, in arriving at its decision, shall have regard to any determination which may be brought to its notice relating to the wages or conditions of service of persons employed in a capacity similar to that of the persons to whom the reference relates and contained in a decision of a joint industrial council, conciliation board or other similar body, or in an agreement between organisations representative of employers and work people.
§ (2) The provisions of the said Section ninety-three as amended by this section shall apply in relation to persons employed as drivers or statutory attendants of authorised vehicles by the holder of an A licence or of a B licence, as they apply in relation to persons employed in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle by the holder of a road service licence, with the substitution for references to a road service licence of references to the A licence or to the B licence, as the case may be, and for references to the commissioners of references to the licensing authority.
§ In the case of an authorised vehicle being a heavy motor-car, this subsection shall apply in relation to an attendant employed to assist the driver in the driving or control of the vehicle as it applies in relation to the driver.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLmoved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) No form of payment shall be recognised as meeting the requirements of the said Section ninety-three as amended by this section which acts as an enticement to the driver to drive a vehicle to the danger of the public or in excess of the speed limit.
§ The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment is more or less self-explanatory. I suggested yesterday that there were cases in which men were urged and even incited to break the law—such cases as those where men are only paid when driving a loaded lorry and have to hurry to get back and therefore exceed the speed limit or possibly drive in a manner dangerous to the public. I beg to move.
The intention of the noble Earl is not quite clear to me, but I take it that it is proposed that any payment to the driver in the form of an inducement to get a job done within a specified time shall not be reckoned as part of his wages from the point of view of a reference to the Industrial Court. It is not known that inducements of this kind are in fact offered to 294 any large extent and in any case the proposal of the noble Earl would be quite unworkable. The Industrial Court must he left free to consider a man's emoluments and decide whether they do or do not constitute fair wages and conditions of employment.
§ Amendment of 20 & 21. Geo. 5. c. 43. s. 36.
§ Provided that the amount to be paid by the authorised insurer or such owner shall not exceed fifty pounds for each person so treated as an in-patient or five pounds for each person so treated as an out-patient.
(b) in relation to a person who receives treatment at a hospital as an out-patient reasonable expenses actually incurred."
§ The noble Lord said: This clause deals with compensation to the hospitals that take in motor casualties. At present many of the beds in the hospitals adjacent to the great motor highways are occupied by accident cases to the exclusion of the local sick poor for whom these hospitals were originally provided. This clause would help to provide some further refund of expenses to these hospitals. The claims of the hospitals are only a small charge compared with the total motor insurance claims, and if the hospitals were not there to do their healing work the total claims would be much higher. Seeing that the premium cost should not exceed half-a-crown for a motorist, I am sure that motorists would be happier if they were not a charge on the hospitals. Probably the best recommendation we can give to this clause is to say that your Lordships have already accepted it and that it is in the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort's Bill, but it does not seem possible for that Bill to become law at an early date and the hospitals cannot be asked to wait. Our best opportunity of dealing with this matter occurs when an appropriate Government Road Traffic Bill comes before your. Lordships' House, as it did in 1930 and does now.
§ Owing to the remarkable generosity of people in this country voluntary hospitals are on an average in a very healthy financial condition at present, but it is those hospitals which are on the motor traffic roads which feel this special drain upon their resources. Any private Road Traffic Bill would welcome this hospital compensation clause owing to the justice of the case and the popularity of the hospitals. Though a Government Bill may not require popular clauses in the same way I hope that the Minister will see his way to adopt this one on its merits, as well as its popularity. I beg to move.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships long because this 296 question has been fully discussed on other Bills, but as treasurer of one of the large London hospitals I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not ask your Lordships to support this Amendment. The hospital with which I am connected is one which, as I am sure your Lordships will readily understand, has its full share of motor accidents. I allude to St. George's Hospital at Hyde Park Corner. At present in respect of 30 per cent. of motor accidents we receive no payment from insurance companies. Either the injured person was to blame or there were no witnesses or there were other reasons for no payment being made.
Then there are two types of insurance companies to be considered. There are, in the first place, companies which we call "tariff offices." As a rule there is no trouble in the case of those companies and they pay up to the limit, but at present that is only £25. I could give instances to your Lordships to show how inadequate that is. I have in mind one case which cost the hospital over £120. For that case we only got £25. Your Lordships will remember the dreadful motor accident recently outside Buckingham Palace. We received the live victims of that accident. Four of them, I regret to say, died and we have at this moment the sole survivor, a young man, only 22 years of age, who has lost both legs. All we can recover in respect of the treatment of that man is £25. There is a second class of insurance company whose agent goes round to a man and says: "There is no liability on us but we will give you something." They try to compound for £2 or £3, or perhaps, in a very serious case, £10. The man comes to the hospital and says: "I am a very poor man and I cannot fight the case. What will you take? They have offered me £2 or £3 and something towards costs. If I do not accept that they say I can fight." He probably cannot fight, because he has not got the money. Therefore, he must take £5 or £10, as the case may be, and if a man is out of work with a wife and family even that sum is useful. In the end the hospital generally has to take a small sum.
These are the cases with which we generally have to deal. Under this Bill we do get three great advantages. We get paid £50 instead of £23 per case. We get £5 for out-patients, which we never got before. Many are dealt with as out- 297 patient cases, and I can assure your Lordships that out-patient cases can last a considerable time. We also have this advantage, that second-class companies, if they offer any payment at all, must pay the hospitals. I do not know whether the noble Marquess is going to accept the Amendment. He may tell us, and I agree with him, that it only deals with the fringe of the subject, but something of this sort, on behalf of the hospitals, is long overdue, and we accept this small crumb of an Amendment rather than wait mouths and perhaps years for a new Bill. I earnestly urge, on behalf of the hundreds of voluntary hospitals which are burdened with this increasing cost, that your Lordships will give the Amendment your most serious consideration.
I, like many other noble Lords, am intimately connected with the hospitals of this country, and I can substantiate everything that has been said by the last two speakers. There is no doubt that at the present moment the treatment of these cases, due to motor accidents, is an intolerable burden on the hospitals, but there was a phrase in Lord Luke's speech which makes me feel that it would be impossible for roe on this occasion to vote in accordance with my sympathies, because he said it would be an appropriate Bill. To my way of thinking this is not an appropriate Bill. It is not a Bill in which such an Amendment ought to be put, and more than that, it is not a Bill in which, from my now somewhat ancient knowledge of the House of Commons, that House is likely to accept such an Amendment. I do not believe, therefore, that it has any chance of remaining in the Bill. There is, however, a Bill actually before the House to-day—Lord Danesfort's Bill. That is an entirely appropriate Bill. The clause in question is incorporated in Lord Danesfort's Bill, and I should earnestly hope that that Bill may be passed into law. Therefore, although the Government may not be able to accept this Amendment for the Bill which is now before the House, I hope that the noble Marquess may be able to assure us that Lord Danesfort's Bill has his sympathy, and that he will do all he can, both here and in another place, to facilitate its early passing into law.
I do not know whether I may be allowed to express a few views 298 upon this particular Amendment, which has been so ably placed before the House. Speaking, if I may, on behalf of the road users, I am certain that, in common with everybody else in this House, we have the greatest possible sympathy with the motive of this Amendment. One hates to think that hospitals can be asked to provide the extensive services that they do for the community at large, and in motor accident eases in particular, and yet do not receive proper remuneration and recompense for what they do. At the same time it does seem to be a very difficult question indeed. I believe, and I have been told, that the voluntary hospitals of the country are out-of-pocket in respect of motor accident cases to the extent of no less a sum than £180,000 per annum. I believe that the maximum compensation which they get under the Road Traffic Act is £25, and that only brings in a sum of about £30,000 a year. Therefore you will see from those figures, if correct, that the voluntary hospitals are out of pocket to the extent now of £150,000 a year at least.
If we pass this Amendment we still should not be curing the trouble. It seems to me that we ought to go far more into this question than we are able to do by means of an Amendment to this particular Bill. I very much agree with the words which have fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Derby, and with what he said about the unlikelihood of another place accepting such an Amendment. I am afraid that they might not, but I cannot go further with him than that. I am quite unable to hope that Lord Danesfort's Bill will be passed into law at an early date. I am afraid that the road interests, for whom I am able to speak, and the motor community generally, very much resent attempts at legislation to saddle them, and them alone, with the responsibility for accidents. They are quite ready to bear their share, but that is another matter. To try to saddle them with the whole responsibility for accidents is quite a different thing.
What I would venture to submit to your Lordships is that if this clause is passed in its present form it might easily result in an increase of motor premiums. That would certainly be a. very serious burden indeed, because not all owners of 299 motor vehicles of one sort or another are rich people. There is the humble owner of the motor bicycle. Many of your Lordships dislike him very much, and when he makes a lot of noise I have every sympathy with your feeling, but many of these owners are wage-earners and not able to bear a largely increased insurance premium. I believe that the motor insurance premiums have not largely increased, if they have increased at all, as a result of the Road Traffic Act, but I have reason to fear that if this Amendment is passed the insurance companies may decide that it is necessary to increase their premiums. After all, the motor community pays enormous taxes in one way and another and they may think why cannot the Government itself, through kindness of heart, make a necessary contribution towards the expenses of hospitals. I am myself connected with a great voluntary institution. We have always taken the view that we must be entirely dependent upon voluntary funds, and that any dependence upon State funds is likely to dry up voluntary contributions. I feel that we are asked to deal with a subject which bristles with difficulties, and I cannot help sharing the view expressed by Lord Derby, when he says that this is hardly a Bill in which this clause can be passed into law. Therefore I hope the matter may receive further consideration by the Government, and be dealt with more comprehensively in the future, in a special Bill, all on its own.
I have felt some difficulty because of the speeches to which I have listened, but I imagine that we are all in sympathy with the object of this proposal, and the only question is how we can best carry it out. I did think, at first, that it was clear that there was an advantage in passing this Amendment, because we should at least have gone a considerable step in advance to the assistance of the hospitals for all the services they render. The noble Earl, Lord Derby, however, has told us that we ought not to vote for it on this occasion, although he is in sympathy with it, because this Bill does not deal comprehensively enough with the subject. That had a little attraction for me, and I thought we were about to hear some other proposals that would be much more in accord with the 300 views which he held. But then he put forward a suggestion which seems to me to be quite an impossible one for us to debate to-day, which was that we should not vote for this Amendment but that we should vote for the Amendment which is to be incorporated, as I gather, in Lord Danesfort's Bill.
The House has already accepted the Amendment in my Bill which was suggested by the Select Committee, and it has passed through the stage of Committee.
Yes, but the difficulty is that the passage of the noble Lord's Bill in another place is much more doubtful than the acceptance of anything that may be done in this Bill. There are very few days for the House to sit this Session—I do not know what view the Government may take—but the point I wish to make is that really if we do want to pass an Amendment of this character, instead of waiting for some future occasion when there may be better opportunities of discussing it in detail, the one suggested by the noble Earl does not really meet the point at all. He puts us in this position, that we shall have abandoned our right to insist, so far as we can, on this Amendment, and we shall have supported the Bill of Lord Danesfort which really was not, so far as I can understand, the faintest chance of being passed in another place. Therefore I do hope that those who are in sympathy with this and realise that we are going a considerable step in advance—we are all interested in the hospitals—will feel that this is an excellent opportunity to enforce our view. If we can manage to pass it and let it go back to the other House, then, if they do not agree, that is a matter for which we are not responsible, and we then have to reserve ourselves for another occasion. But I do hope that we shall do our best to support it now.
Before I express my cordial support of what the noble Marquess has said, may I refer to a point made by the noble Earl? The noble Earl will remember that when the original clause was passed three years ago the insurance companies accepted the burden without any increase of premium—or at any rate, those of which I had any experience. Since then we have gone very carefully into estimates 301 —it is very difficult; we can only form estimates to the best of our knowledge and belief—and we think that the most that any insurance premium could justifiably he increased. If this Amendment became law, would be half-a-crown on each policy, which is not very much, after all, and I have every hope that it might even be less.
But may I associate myself at once with what the noble Marquess has said in disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Derby in thinking that this is not an appropriate occasion? Do not let us forget, this is not a new proposal. This really is an Amendment of a clause in the existing Act of 1930. I could not help, when the noble Earl was speaking, remembering the happy days when he was on the Front Bench, because he gave the kind of answer that was given us three years ago when the original clause was moved in this House and agreed to by your Lordships—agreed to unanimously; that is to say, a Division was not challenged, although the Ministry of Transport spoke very strongly against it, raising the same point that that was not the appropriate moment, any more than it is now, according to Lord Derby.
Your Lordships will remember that, shortly, the clause of the Act of 1930 enacts, or purports to enact, that where any payment is made by an insurance company to an insured person who has been treated in hospital the company shall also pay the hospital the cost of treatment up to £25. That clause did something. I again safeguard myself by saying it is very difficult to make estimates of costs, but we have done our best and nobody can do more. At the time that that clause was passed it was estimated that the hospitals recovered about 11 per cent. of the cost of treatment of the cases that came through their doors. The present estimate is just under 15 per cent., so that the clause as passed by your Lordships three years ago has resulted in an increase of 4 per cent., and for that we must be grateful. But still 15 per cent. of the cost is not enough. It is certainly far below what was hoped for by those who took their share in drafting the clause three years ago.
I am not exaggerating very much when I say that there is not much in this Amendment which was not in the minds of those who drafted the Amendment 302 which was agreed to three years ago, except, of course, the increase from £25 to £50. But unfortunately the ingenuity of some solicitors—not the cream of the profession, if I may say so—and some insurance companies has disappointed our hopes under the old clause, and that is why this Amendment is proposed. I could go into it in detail—I am familiar with the difficulties that have arisen—but, after all, surely it is enough to state that the difficulties have been recognised by the Select Committee, and for that reason the clause appears in Lord Danes-fort's Bill, and that the Amendment is regarded as essential by the hospitals and as one to be adopted at the earliest possible moment. We estimate that the fact that the old clause of the Act of 1930 is not acting satisfactorily is costing the voluntary hospitals £4,000 a week. Surely, they have a right to ask that at the earliest possible moment their grievance should be remedied.
Now what about this Bill not being appropriate? Was there ever a more miscellaneous Bill before your Lordships than this one—quite rightly. I think the Ministry of Transport are right to have made it a miscellaneous one. After all, the Road Code is the Act of 1930. The Ministry of Transport have found that there are certain deficiencies in the Act of 1930 and therefore they bring this Bill before Parliament, quite rightly, to remedy the most urgent deficiencies. Your Lordships will see them enumerated, though not all of them, in the title—regulating the carriage of goods on the roads controlling the use of vehicles on certain roads, the amendment of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act with reference to wages, hours and other conditions; to amend the law relating to railways and to set up the Council; and lastly—do not let us forget it—the variation of traffic areas, which was passed by your Lordships last night, when the Leader of the House admitted that it will cause an addition to the title in order to authorise it. This is another, a crying evil, that has arisen under the Act of 1930 and that requires amendment. I suggest that it is quite as important as any other Amendment that the Government have brought forward, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to this variation of the clause which you passed in 1930.
I have a confession to make, and I am 303 going to follow it with repentance. I was put up by the Ministry of Transport three years ago to turn down this clause, and I did it in my maiden speech. I had hardly been on that Bench when I was given a stack of Amendments much larger than the noble Marquess's to deal with, and the late Lord Russell, who was so extremely skilful in carrying that measure through, said to me: "You take this." Well, my Lords, I took it. I listened to the arguments, and, of course, I was quite persuaded by the Ministry of Transport that they were irrelevant on that occasion. And also that great word "impracticability" was used. But have been waiting during the three years to see whether something was going to be done, and really I feel to-night that it is time for my repentance. Without repeating the very weighty arguments that have been produced by previous noble Lords, I shall myself certainly support this Amendment.
The Amendment which has been proposed is one with the substance of which we are all in sympathy. The mover of this Amendment has told us of the difficulties under which hospitals are labouring at the present moment, and his views have been ably supported by many of your Lordships who are so closely identified with hospitals in this country. Lord Greville showed his great anxiety with regard to the future, and I am bound to say I fully agree with him in all that he has said. The burden is increasing—I might almost say daily—on our hospitals. While few of us are desirous of seeing contributions being made to hospitals except from voluntary sources, still this is a matter which has been in all our minds for some considerable time. One might, perhaps, also feel sympathy with the words which have just fallen from the noble Lord opposite who has told us that he has waited for a period of three years and nothing seems to have been done.
I naturally sympathise with the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships on this particular point, and also with the noble Marquess who sits opposite, but I am bound to say that, while we value the latitude which we have in your Lordships' House for the discussion of all these matters, still I do feel that in a measure of this description a clause of 304 this kind is not altogether appropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, has spoken of this Bill as a Bill of a very miscellaneous character, and he went through some of the provisions which it is hoped to pass into law, but I do not think he can deny that this is a Bill which by its title proposes to deal with the better regulation of goods traffic. I do not feel that with the widest possible imagination a clause of this description can properly come into a Bill of which the description is "for the better regulation of goods traffic." I agree that under the better regulation of goods traffic there are many provisions to which the noble Earl alluded, but I feel very strongly that the scope of this Bill, wide though it is, cannot really contain an Amendment of this description.
The clause itself is one which only deals with one aspect of the matter, and that is the payments that should be made to a hospital in cases where compensation has been paid to an injured person who has been treated there. This is a Bill which has been brought up to your Lordships' House at a very late period in the Session, and I would venture to put before your Lordships this suggestion, that at this late hour of the Session a provision of this sort should not be incorporated in this Bill and sent down from your Lordships' House to the House of Commons. I think that we might find that the House of Commons would naturally take the view, at this late hour and without any proper notice, that this provision should not be incorporated in a Bill to which it is not germane in any sense of the term. I would therefore venture to ask your Lordships, notwithstanding the unanimity we all feel with regard to the importance of the matter, to agree that this Amendment is not germane to the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLmoved to insert the following new clause: .A holder of a public service vehicle licence under the Head Traffic Act, 1930, or of a licence under this Act shall not prohibit any employee from becoming or remaining a member of a trade society; and shall afford to any workman in his employ the right to be represented, in all matters affecting wages and conditions of employment, by a trade society.
§ The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which is designed to counter those firms who oppose their employees becom- 305 ing trade union members. I can give a concrete case in point, that of Messrs. Tilling-B.A.T., which combine, I think, was referred to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on the Second Reading. This concern has substantial interests in road passenger transport. In many parts of the country it has a virtual monopoly. I will not read out the number of undertakings it controls but there are some eighteen of them. It has wide interests in practically all parts of the country. Where men join and desire that questions affecting their interests, either as individuals or collectively, shall be dealt with by the union, there is in nearly every case a definite refusal from this company. Though I am reluctant to say that men are dismissed for being members of a trade union, I am satisfied that men who have been active trade unionists have been dismissed on the most flimsy of pretexts. In one of the companies controlled by this combine—namely, the Eastern National—every man who had attended a trade union conference was dismissed within a week or two of the conference. Within the past fortnight a union collector was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. He is a fairly long service man with a good record, whereas other men with short service—perhaps only a few months as compared with years in the case of the man dismissed—have been retained. Five active union men at the same depot of that company have been dismissed for very inadequate reasons.
§ Men desire protection from an organisation independent of the employers. There are important questions of wages, hours, schedules, and general conditions of labour, in addition to which there are problems which arise under the Road Traffic Act and the regulations made thereunder. The speed limits under the Act are affected by the time schedules. If an individual raises an objection to these he is a marked man. The union could do it without any individual being involved at all. Firms promise to defend in the Courts if the man is prosecuted. If, however, the firm is also involved there, the purpose is to clear the firm and the man takes second place. A solicitor engaged independently of the firm is essential. Dangerous driving is again bound up with the time schedules. It is a serious offence, and a conviction can have dire results for the man. The 306 conductor is also involved in questions of over-loading amongst other things. He should have the kind of defence which the union can provide, for in ninny cases he is acting on the instructions of the employer. I have a recent instance where conductors were prosecuted for this offence, and the employers were also prosecuted for aiding and abetting. The firm defended, but the evidence showed that the main object was to clear the company.
§ Though the licence for a driver or conductor may not be taken away by the Courts, it is within the power of the Traffic Commissioners to take away, suspend, or refuse to renew a licence where a number of convictions have been recorded. The man can appeal against the decision of the Traffic Commissioners and ask for a re-hearing, at which he can be represented by his trade union official. Men working on many of the Tilling-B.A.T. companies are denied that advantage because of the attitude of the companies towards trade unionism. In some of the companies the firm set up a form of committee, and say they will meet the men's representatives. The company arranges the election and, in some cases, selects the representatives. If such a representative thinks he is free to voice the views of the men he soon finds out his mistake. I have cases where men have tried to act as representatives, and have put forward the views of those for whom they spoke. Their period of service with the firm has been brought to an abrupt end. The railway companies who have a substantial financial interest in the Tilling-B.A.T. concerns give full recognition to the trade unions, and are parties with the unions to the machinery of the 1921 Railways Act. Their representatives should deprecate the action of the Tilling-B.A.T. group.
§ The two unions directly concerned with the men on omnibus services—the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Railwaymen—would be prepared at any time to meet the representatives of the Tilling-Bat group either as a group or with the omnibus operators to discuss machinery for trade union negotiations and discussion. The scheme could provide for dealing with the companies, or it could be of a national character with provision for handling the local questions with the 307 individual management. The association of which the undertakings in the Tilling-Bat group are members will meet the trade unions, but the undertakings will not do so. In fact their people have said to the men: "Why should you bother about joining a trade union? You will get the advantage of any variations of Section 19 without being a member." The Omnibus Owners' Association, I understand, cannot within its articles of association meet and negotiate with trade unions on labour questions. They can, however, meet arid deal with questions affected by or arising out of legislation.
§ On the goods side there have been complaints from men who join the union, employed by Messrs. Bouts Brothers. They had been dismissed because they had been members of the union. An official of the union made an approach to the firm and met one of their directors, who informed him that he was trespassing and ordered him out of the office. This firm is now part of a combine controlled by Oswald Tillotson and is operating hundreds of lorries, and approach has been made direct to Oswald Tillotson, Limited. They made inquiries and suggested that there was no objection to their employees being members of the union. Further, approaches have been made direct to the firm of Bouts Brothers, but the union are in the position that they were in during the early stages with this firm, that their correspondence is not even acknowledged. This firm have been prosecuted a number of times because their employees have been worked for longer hours than those laid down in the Road Traffic Act. It will be seen from what I have stated that it is impossible for the union to make representations to them in order to have the conditions adjusted. In practically every case where a prosecution has taken place against the firm the employee concerned has been dismissed and in some cases the employees have found it impossible to obtain work with other firms in the district because of the publicity given to their case. For these reasons I beg to move.
Before the noble Marquess answers—I do not want him to express regret after he 308 has answered—I should like to put one argument before him. This is really a very important matter. We are not asking that all the undertakers should employ trade union men; we are simply asking that they shall not prohibit any employee from joining a trade union or being a member of a trade union. We are basing this request on evidence of open hostility on the part of certain very influential firms to trade unions, and to trade unionism and representations from trade unions. I would ask the noble Marquess to take it very carefully into account. If this method of obtaining our object is inconvenient, if it can be done by an Amendment to some other clause, we should be very ready to accept any Amendment that the noble Marquess suggests, but we do think that as there are these flagrant instances of a large firm showing open hostility to men who are members of trade unions, something should be inserted in this Bill to prevent them from taking up that attitude.
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention. This new clause purports to provide that neither the holder of a public service vehicle licence under the Act of 1930 nor the holder of a licence under the present Bill shall prohibit any employee from becoming or remaining a member of a trade society. It goes further than the point to which the noble Lord addressed himself and desires to give to any workman the right to be represented in all matters affecting wages and conditions of employment by a trade society. The introduction of the present Bill in the judgment of the Ministry of Transport is not a suitable occasion for making statutory provisions for trade union representation in a particular industry. Any attempts at victimisation can certainly be dealt with by the trade unions concerned in the manner in which they have been dealt with in the past, but it is not possible to make it a statutory requirement by this Bill that the employers of transport workers and they alone shall in every case recognise the intervention of a trade union. That statement which I have made on behalf of the Ministry of Transport is in relation to the second part of the new clause which has been moved by the noble Earl who sits opposite. The point to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has 309 addressed himself is one of the details of which I have not been made aware. I will certainly mention the matter to my honourable friend. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that this clause is not one which we could really incorporate in this Bill at the present time.
§ Forgery &c. of licences.
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
§ (2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall apply in relation to a document evidencing the appointment of an examiner or other officer for the purposes of this Part of this Act as they apply in relation to a licence.
§ (3) If any person for the purpose of obtaining the grant of a licence to himself' or any other person knowingly makes any false statement he shall he guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act and he liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
§ (4) If a police constable has reasonable cause to believe that a licence produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act by the driver of a motor vehicle is a document in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed, he may seize the document and, when any document is seized under this section, the person from whom it was taken shall, unless the document has been previously returned to him or he has previously been charged with an offence under this section, be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved, at the end of subsection (1) (a), to insert "or any document, plate or 310 mark by which a vehicle is to be identified as being an authorized vehicle." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment and several which immediately follow are needed in order to bring the clause in conformity with the system of licensing contemplated in the Bill. Vehicles may be identified by documents, plates or marks, and the falsification of these must also be made an offence.
The next four Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved, in subsection (4), after "constable", to insert "examiner or certifying officer." The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is to confer upon examiners and certifying officers power to seize documents or plates which appear to have been tampered with.
The other Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
The Amendments in my name upon this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Interpretation of Part 1.
§ and the expressions "public service vehicle," "stage carriage," "express carriage," "contract carriage," "heavy motor-car," "tramcar," "trolley vehicle," "owner," "driver," "road" and "chief officer of police" have the same meanings respectively as in the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to insert "'Driver' in relation to a trailer, means the driver of the vehicle by which the trailer is drawn, and 'driver' shall be construed accordingly." The noble Marquess said: As there is no driver on a trailer it is necessary to define "driver" in relation to a trailer. I beg to move.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to omit the definition of "licensing authority." The noble Marquess said: This is a deletion because this definition will be unnecessary in view of the proposed Government Amendment on page 30, line 33. I beg to move.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRYmoved to add to the clause: (2) Anything required or authorised by this part of this Act to be done to or by a licensing authority by whom a licence was granted may be done to or by any person for the time being acting as licensing authority for the area for which the first-mentioned authority was acting at the time of the granting of the licence.
§ The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is to preserve continuity of administration in the event of an individual licensing authority ceasing for any reason to act as such, or in the event of some re-arrangement or redistribution of traffic areas.
§ Right of railway company, with 'approval of Rates Tribunal, to make agreed charges for the carriage of merchandise.
§ Provided that any such agreed charge, including the conditions attaching thereto, shall require the approval of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall not approve such a charge if, in its opinion, the object to be secured by the making of, the charge could, having regard to all the circumstances, 313 adequately be secured by the grant of appropriate exceptional rates under the Railways Act, 1921.
§ (3) An agreed charge shall be filed with the Tribunal within seven days after the date of the agreement, and notice of an application to the Tribunal for its approval of the agreed charge shall be given in such manner as the Tribunal may direct.
§ (6) Any trader who considers that his business will be detrimentally affected if an agreed charge is approved and is made by the railway company, or that his business has been detrimentally affected as a result of the making of an agreed charge, may at any time apply to the Tribunal for a charge to be fixed for the carriage of his merchandise (being the same merchandise as or similar merchandise to any merchandise to which the agreed charge relates) by the railway company with which he contracts for the carriage of that merchandise, whether the same company by which the agreed charge is proposed to be made or is being made, or another company; and, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the business of the trader will be or has been so detrimentally affected, it may fix a charge (including the conditions to be attached thereto) to be made by the railway company with which he contracts for the carriage of such merchandise as the Tribunal may determine.
§ An application under this subsection may, if it he convenient, be combined with an objection by the trader to the application for the approval of the agreed charge, and the Tribunal, in fixing a charge, may fix it either for such period as it thinks fit or without restriction, and may appoint the date on which it is to conic into operation, but no such charge shall be fixed for a period in excess of that for which the agreed charge complained of by the trader has been approved.
§ Provided that where under the last, preceding subsection the Tribunal has fixed a charge in favour of a trader complaining of an agreed charge the trader shall not be 314 entitled to make an application under this subsection in respect of that agreed charge in so far as it relates to merchandise which is the same as or similar to any merchandise to which the charge so fixed relates.
§ Where under this subsection the Tribunal withdraws its approval of an agreed charge or approves an agreed charge subject to modifications, any charges fixed under the last preceding subsection in favour of a trader complaining of that agreed charge shall cease to operate or shall be subject to such corresponding modifications as the Tribunal may determine.
(b) the business of any trader by whom, or in whose interests, objection is made to approval being given to an agreed charge, or application is made for approval to be withdrawn.
(ii) so much of Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and of any section of a local and personal or private Act, as relates to the obligation of a railway company to accord no undue preference to any person, and section twenty-seven of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which relates to complaints with respect to undue preference.
§ (10) Notwithstanding anything in this section, any port or harbour authority, dock company, or authority owning and working docks, which shall have reason to believe that any railway company is by an agreed charge placing the port, harbour, or dock of the authority or dock company at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other port, harbour, or dock to or from which traffic is or may he carried by means of the lines of the railway company, either alone or in conjunction with those of other railway companies, may make complaint thereof to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall have the like jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of any such complaint as they have to hear and determine the subject matter of a complaint under Section thirty 315 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and Section twenty-seven of that Act and Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall apply with respect to such complaint.
§ (11) The provisions of Section fifty-four of the Railways Act, 1921 (which relates to the publication of schedules of standard charges, etc.) shall not apply in relation to charges approved or fixed under this section, but where the Tribunal approve or fix a charge or withdraw an approval previously given to a charge, the decision of the Tribunal, and also where they approve or fix a charge, particulars of that charge, including the conditions attaching thereto, shall be reported by the railway company concerned to the Minister of Transport (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Minister") within fourteen days after the decision of the Tribunal, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, and all such charges and the conditions attaching thereto shall be recorded in such manner and be open to inspection by any person without payment at such places and times as the Tribunal may direct.
§ (12) An agreed charge which is for the time being approved by the Tribunal and a charge fixed under this section which is for the time being operative shall be deemed to be exceptional rates for the purposes of the following provisions of Part III of the Railways of Act, 1921, which relate to the modification, review and revision of charges, that is to say,—Section thirty-five, subsection (2) of Section thirty-seven, Section thirty-nine and Section fifty-nine.
§ (13) The provisions of Sections twenty-one to twenty-six of the Railways Act, 1921 (which relate to the procedure of the Tribunal under Part III of that Act, to additional members of the Tribunal, to appeals from its decisions and to its staff and expenses) shall apply in relation to its duties, powers and proceedings under this section as they apply in relation to its duties, powers and proceedings under the said Part III.
The first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ LORD DE CLIFFORDmoved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Furthermore no charge shall be regarded as an agreed charge unless such charge shall be based on a tonnage rate or on a rate per package unit based on weight in respect of specified merchandise, and no such charge shall be on any ad valorem basis or percentage of value in relation to trading.
§ The noble Lord said: This afternoon I am in the happy position of talking, not 316 about roads or about any opposition to anybody who carries goods. It is perhaps the only time on which I shall be able to do that on a Road and Rail Bill. I am here to talk about trade, and I am going to ask your Lordships to accept at any rate the principle of my Amendment because I realise that as drafted it is not so excellently worded as it might be. The principle which I ask you to affirm is that all traders in this country should have equal rights of trade. This principle has been expressed on innumerable occasions, starting as far back as 1845 in the Railway Clauses Act right up to the Railways Act of 1921.
§ I would like particularly to call the attention of your Lordships to a statement made by the Lord Chancellor in 1919 in connection with the case North Staffordshire Railway versus Edge. He said then, and it is equally applicable to-day: It is the policy of Parliament that traders in the matter of indisputable rights shall receive equal treatment. I would ask your Lordships to-day to accept that principle. As this Bill stands it is possible for railway companies to make to large firms charges which it would be impossible for small traders—who undoubtedly make up the most important. mass of traders—to negotiate. It has been done in the past although it is against the law. There are many ways in which this would adversely effect trade in this country. In one way it would affect the ports of the country. To take one instance, it would be possible to transport a ton of some particular commodity such as canned fruit and make an ad valorem charge. Taking the ton of canned fruit as being worth £18 approximately it could be carried right through the country for a sum of 12s. 6d. That would be an extraordinarily moderate charge merely for cartage through the streets from one end of London to another, but to take it from London to Aberdeen by rail at such a charge would be absurd. If a private trader in that particular town wished to take that amount of canned goods he could not possibly get it at that rate. He would probably have to pay 50s. per ton.
§ I could give innumerable other instances. It will be possible by this Bill for a large concern marketing an enormous number of lines of goods to get 317 an inequitable transport rate by virtue of this ad valorem charge whereas the small competitor could not get anything like that charge. It is obviously unfair. It means enabling large firms to set up monopolies in towns because they could get such low transport cost that smaller firms could not compete with them. The principle of my Amendment is to ensure that men in this country who have always previously been permitted to carry on their trade shall be permitted to do so on an equality with other firms. The fact that a firm happens to be a large firm is no reason why a small man should not be permitted to carry on his business. There is enormous backing for this request. The National Chamber of Trade is supporting this Amendment and I ask your Lordships to accept the principle that one man may trade equally with another. I beg to move.
The intention of this Amendment is to preclude the railway companies and traders from agreeing to a charge which is calculated on any basis other than weight. Its adoption might seriously limit the scope and usefulness of the relief which Clause 31 is designed to accord to the railways from the restrictions governing the basis of charge by which they are at present handicapped. As your Lordships are aware, under the existing law they can only charge on a per ton per mile basis and while the Amendment would enable them to depart from mileage rates in making agreements under the clause it ties them definitely to a basis of weight. But "weight" is not by any means the only factor to be taken into account in fixing an economic and mutually advantageous transport charge. Many other elements, such as bulk, convenience of handling, regularity of traffic, etc. enter into the question. Moreover, it is not apparent why the railway companies should remain tied to a particular basis for agreed charges while their competitors remain free to charge according to any basis or formula which they think fit and their customers find convenient.
If, however, it is sought to put any arrangement into force as an agreed charge if and when the present 318 Bill becomes law, the railway companies will have to submit it in advance to the Railway Rates Tribunal for approval. That is subsection (1).
Particulars will have to be lodged with the Tribunal and notice of the application for approval given. That, figures in subsection (3). Any trader who considers that his business will be detrimentally affected if such an agreed charge is approved and put into operation, can not only lodge objection, when he will be entitled to be heard by the Tribunal, but can also apply to the Tribunal for a charge to be fixed for the carrier of his merchandise, if it is the same merchandise as, or similar merchandise to, that to which the agreed charge relates. That appears in subsections (5) and (6). The Tribunal is directed by subsection (8) to have regard to all relevant considerations and in particular to the effect of the agreed charge on: (a) the net revenue of the railway company, and (b) the business of any objecting trader. Provision is made whereby associations or bodies representing a substantial number of traders interested in or affected by the decision as to an agreed charge may object and be heard on behalf of the traders they represent, so that it will not be necessary for small traders to lodge objections and appear individually. In view of these simple safeguards any alarm is largely misconceived.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the existing law as to equality of charges applies only in like circumstances and that railway companies can and do quote reduced rates for large quantities of goods. To suggest that the trader who sends or orders large consignments must necessarily pay for transport at the same rate as the man who deals only in small lots is to ignore one of the most elementary principles of trading. Nor would the small trader necessarily be advantaged if the railway companies were forbidden to take such considerations into account in fixing their charges or if restrictions such as those proposed in the Amendment were imposed on them, since the probable result would be that the traffic would pass by road without any restrictions whatever as to the basis of charge. As already shown, the railway companies will not be able to put any agreed charge into operation until it has received the approval of the Railway 319 Rates Tribunal, so that even under the clause they will still enjoy far less liberty in quoting charges to their customers than will their competitors. Finally, it must not be inferred that in resisting this Amendment the Government is implying either approval or disapproval of any particular basis of charge; that is for the Railway Rates Tribunal, when application for approval is made to them arid after hearing any objections which may be lodged. I regret therefore that the Government find it impossible to accept the Amendment.
I am much obliged for what, the noble Marquess has said, but he leaves me completely unrepentent. I will not, of course, press the Amendment, but this reference to the Railway Rates Tribunal leaves me not only unrepentant but more depressed because I would point out that the Railway Rates Tribunal is a body of three persons, and of those three persons two of them at the present moment have definitely negotiated an agreement which under the Bill is absolutely illegal, and it seems an extraordinary thing to say that while the Government will not approve one or other policy, they are going to hand it over to the Railway Rates Tribunal, who have already approved a policy. Whatever the noble Lord has said this afternoon I am afraid that by passing this clause in its present form Parliament is going to give one of the most devastating blows to small traders that they have ever been given.
The noble Lord's speech is somewhat amazing, and I do not know that there is any need to follow what he has said. I endeavoured to reply to the argument that he put forward, but I can put it plainer than that, and say that the interest he represents has, even now, far greater latitude than the railway companies will have under the provisions in this Bill, and I cannot understand why he himself desires in those circumstances still further to restrict the railway companies.
I would point out to the noble Marquess that in this particular case I am not representing the road interests, as he seems to think.
These are all drafting Amendments.
§ Page 32, line 17, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("the") in line 20.
§ "(11) The Weaver Navigation Trustees shall if they consider that their business will be detrimentally affected if any agreed charge is approved and is made by the railway company, or that their business has been detrimentally affected as the result of the making of the charge by virtue of a previous approval, be entitled to be heard in opposition to an application to the Tribunal for its approval of an agreed charge."
§ The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I propose to ask your Lordships to accept is designed to give protection to the Weaver Navigation Trust. This Trust is an undertaking of considerable age, founded in 1721 by Act of Parlia- 321 meat, and it is administered by thirty-eight Trustees, of whom twenty-two are either members of the Cheshire County Council or nominated by the County Council. The income that these Trustees receive is derived entirely from tolls paid by the users of the navigation system, and is not in any sense from the receipts of freight charges for carrying goods. That is to say they are not carrying goods. That proviso was made by Parliament in its wisdom when it set up the constitution of this navigation. That means that under this Bill the Weaver. Navigation have no rights of appeal.
§ This question was brought up in another place, and I will quote to your Lordships the reply of the Minister of Transport with regard to this proposal He said: In particular, I think my hon. friend might point out to this Trust, who are naturally anxious and whose anxiety we all want to allay, what a difference has been made in the position by the Amendment that I moved yesterday. No doubt their anxiety is that the railway company in their area might seek, by a special agreed rate, to destroy their ancient undertaking, but when they realise that this action by one railway company, to destroy one not very large canal, would have repercussions over the whole country, and over all the railway systems, they will see the unlikelihood of any such attempt being made by that particular railway company. I do not think it was made quite clear to the Minister that the repercussions throughout the country of which he spoke would not in fact occur and for this reason, that the Weaver Navigation is used entirely for the carriage of one specific merchandise, that is, salt and the products of the great salt beds of Cheshire, in short, the chemical industry; and so it would not be a question, if an agreed charge is made, of repercussions throughout the country, because this is a highly-specialised traffic, which only occurs—and even there in a very minor degree—in one or two other small salt beds, such as Droitwich and Middlesbrough. Therefore the Weaver Navigation have not got the protection that other canals have, in that they are pot carriers of general merchandise. The Minister also said that he could not accept such a dangerous precedent as would be created by putting this one body, very similar in character to all others, in an exceptionally privileged position. Here again it seems to me that there was some mis- 322 apprehension on the part of the Minister. The Weaver Navigation Trustees are very far from being similar to other canal bodies in this country. In their very nature, set up by Parliament as they were as a public utility, they differ from other canal and waterway transport undertakings.
§ I should like to visualise what might happen under the provisions of this Bill. We can suppose a hypothetical case in which the railways reduce rates by means of an agreed charge to a very low level indeed for the carriage of chemical goods; that, owing to the permanent upkeep which such a Navigation demands, would very soon put the Weaver Navigation out of business. When that happened the railway companies could quite easily raise their charges to any level they chose. The Weaver Navigation is then out of business, and, moreover, the chemical industry has lost a very valuable means of transport. The Weaver Navigation has assets of a capital value of about £3,000,000 in round figures. They carry every year about 800,000 tons of goods. Here is a company which for every £4 of capital investment is carrying a ton of goods. I do not think your Lordships will say that it is an inefficiently run concern. The very fact that it is efficiently run makes it, by that much, easier for the railways to undercut it for a short space of time, and then raise their rates. I think that Parliament would be doing a great injustice to a body which exists by the command of Parliament itself if they were to take away from the chemical industry the benefit of cheap transport which at the moment they enjoy. It is very important that we should take a long view, and, although it is possible that the railway might say: "We will give lower rates, low enough to cut out the Weaver Navigation for the next two or three years," the long view is that by getting rid of this very economical form of transport we shall be doing very serious harm to one of the larger industries in this country.
§ By this Amendment the Trustees would be entitled to put their case before the Tribunal as if they were traders who considered that their business would be detrimentally affected by any particular agreed charge. I know that the noble Marquess will tell me that there has been an agreement concluded between the four 323 amalgamated railway companies and the Canal Association, of which the Weaver Navigation is a member. I, speaking from these Benches, welcome such cooperation, but this agreement, which is good for five years and subsequently terminable at twelve months notice, has no statutory force whatever, and cannot be said to protect the Weaver Navigation, in that, on the expiry of the agreement, notice can be given, and no redress is obtainable by the Weaver Navigation. In the peculiar circumstances which I have outlined the possibilities of irreparable injury to this waterway system are so dangerous that the Trustees do not feel that they can let this Bill pass through Parliament without a protest of some sort, and without trying to bring their case before your Lordships.
§ Not only do I say that the Weaver Navigation is in a very special position, but your Lordships have yourselves said so in past Acts of Parliament. I will quote only one, there is the Bridges Act, 1929—I think Section 12. In that section the Weaver Navigation were specially exempted on account of their peculiar position from the scope of the Act. So that it is no new thing that I am trying to foist upon your Lordships. It. has been thoroughly recognised in the past that the Weaver Navigation do occupy this very particular and special position. I have shown that a very considerable case is to be made out for the Weaver Navigation, and I hope that if the noble Marquess cannot accept my Amendment without reference to the Minister of Transport, he will give me some assurance that the facts I have put before your Lordships will be considered by the Minister between now and the Report stage.
I regret that after the speech of the noble Lord I am not in a position to accept his Amendment. A similar Amendment was moved during the proceedings on the Bill before the Standing Committee in another place and negatived. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Weaver Navigation Trustees to be heard in opposition to an application to the Tribunal for its approval of an agreed 324 charge. If accepted, the Amendment would place this one canal undertaking in a privileged position and cause it to be treated as a trader sending traffic by railway. The argument of the noble Lord is that this canal was in a peculiar position because it does not carry traffic itself, but is merely a toll taker. As to this, only about three canal undertakings are themselves carriers, and the Weaver Navigation does not therefore differ from most other canals in this respect. Secondly, it is said that the canal is administered by 38 Trustees, of whom 22 are appointed by the Cheshire County Council, and any profits made are paid over to the county funds, so that the ratepayers benefit rather than private persons. These statements are true and apparently £1,200,000 was so paid into county funds—but all before 1880, 53 years ago. Further it is contended that in view of the unique position, as it is said, of the Navigation, no precedent would be created by giving them special protection. It is not apparent that the position of the Navigation differs in material respects from that of other bodies, canal or dock owners, to whom any special rights accorded to the Weaver Navigation Trustees could hardly be logically denied. The Amendment would therefore create a most undesirable precedent.
That was only an illustration.
—as an illustration of the exceptional position; but I think the reason for treating this case specially in respect of its bridges was mainly a physical one, and really constitutes no precedent for special treatment in the present Bill. The physical reason was that the canal is used by seagoing vessels of large tonnage, and most of their bridges in consequence are exceptional in character as regards headway, etc. I regret that for these reasons it is impossible to create any differentiation in favour of the Weaver Canal.
I do not intend to press this Amendment if the Government say they will not accept it, but I would like to remind the noble Marquess that he has not in point of fact replied to my central reason for putting forward this Amendment, which is that the peculiarity of the Weaver Navigation lies far more in the singular nature of its traffic, in that it, only carries the product of the chemical industry. Therefore, the safeguard which the Ministry of Transport very rightly put in the Bill on the Committee stage in another place does not apply to the Weaver Navigation. I shall not pretend that the answer of the noble Marquess has in any sense satisfied me that the Weaver Navigation is in the same position as any other canal undertaking in the country, because the traffic which it carries is really that of one industry, and one industry alone.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved, in subsection 11, after "&c.", to insert "and in the case of a light railway company, the enactments relating to the publication of rates." The noble Marquess said: Subsection (11) will exempt railway companies, in respect of charges approved or fixed under the clause, from the requirements of Section 54 of the Railways Act, 1921, as to publication of charges. Section 54 of the Act of 1921 superseded, so far as railways are concerned, earlier enactments, notably Section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, and Sections 33 and 34 of the Rail- 326 way and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, but those enactments continue to apply to light railway. companies. As the powers of Clause 31 of the Bill extend to light railways, as well as to ordinary railways, the Amendment is required to secure exemption for the former similar to that already accorded by the clause to the latter.
The next four Amendments are drafting Amendments.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved, in subsection (13), to leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is necessary as a consequence of the insertion, in the other House, of Clause 33, under which further jurisdiction is to be conferred on the Railway Rates Tribunal. The Provisions as to procedure, appeals, etc., should apply to the exercise of that jurisdiction, as well as to the exercise of jurisdiction under Clause 31.
§ Review of agreed charges and exceptional notes competing with coastwise shipping.
§ 33.—(1) In this section the expression "charge" (except in the phrase "agreed charge") includes any charge (whether described as a charge, or as a rate, or other- 327 wise) which is made by any carrier in respect of the carriage of merchandise.
the Minister shall consult with the Board of Trade upon the matter and if, after such consultation, it appears to him prima facie that the complaint is one which in the national interests should be investigated, he shall refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal for investigation and review.
§ (3) Upon any reference to the Tribunal under the preceding subsection, the Tribunal shall hold an inquiry and investigate all matters which appear to it to be relevant, including the circumstances in which the agreed charges or exceptional rates complained of are being made or charged by the railway company, and their adequacy or inadequacy, having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which they are made or charged, and shall have regard to the charges for the carriage of merchandise by any route which is in competition with the route to which any agreed charge or exceptional rate complained of applies, whether any such charge is payable in respect of carriage by rail, by sea, or by road, or in respect of carriage partly by one of those forms of transport and partly by another of them, or by all of them.
§ For the purposes of an inquiry under this section the Tribunal shall have the like powers of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and of administering oaths as it has for the purposes of its functions under the Railways Act, 1921.
§ and that, in either case, the action of the railway company is by reason of its pre- 328 judicial effect upon the interests of coastwise shipping undesirable in the national interests, the Tribunal may by order cancel or vary all or any of those agreed charges or exceptional rates, or may make such other order upon the railway company as in the circumstances of the case it thinks proper, and any order of the Tribunal may be expressed to operate for so long only as any conditions specified therein with respect to charges on competitive routes, or otherwise, are satisfied.
§ Any such order may, notwithstanding any provisions of this Act, be made to take effect at such date as the Tribunal thinks fit.
§ (5) The Tribunal, on an application made by the railway company, o[...] on a subsequent application made under subsection (2) of this section, may cancel or vary any order made under the preceding subsection.
had given Notice to move in subsection (2) to leave out "who" and insert "which." The noble Viscount said: This is a grammatical drafting Amendment which I understand the noble Marquess accepts, subject to this, that the words "of persons who" should be left out and the word "which" inserted.
The next Amendment is also a drafting Amendment.
The next is a dratfing Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to leave out the last paragraph of subsection (3). The noble Marquess said: The paragraph to be omitted is unnecessary as the powers of the Tribunal of compelling attendance of witnesses and production of documents and of administering oaths are inherent in it by virtue of its status as a Court of Record and not by virtue of specific provisions of the Railways Act, 1921.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to insert before the last paragraph of subsection (4): Where under this subsection the Tribunal cancels or varies an agreed charge, any charges fixed under this Part of this Act in favour of a trader complaining of that agreed charge shall cease to operate, or shall be subject to such corresponding modifications as the Tribunal may determine. The noble Marquess said: Under Clause 33 the Railway Rates Tribunal will have power, in certain circumstances, to make an order cancelling agreed charges or exceptional rates put into operation by a railway company. It is evident that if they cancel agreed charges they should be in a position also to cancel any charges fixed by them under Clause 31 (6) in favour of traders who have complained of the effect of the agreed charges, and indeed Clause 31 expressly provides that no charge shall be fixed for a period in excess of that for which the agreed charge complained of has been approved, and that upon withdrawal of approval to the agreed charge any charges fixed upon complaints against the agreed charge shall cease to operate.
The next three Amendments are all drafting Amendments.
§ Amendment of 11 and 12 Geo. 5. c. 55. s. 40.
§ "() (a) Where any such company as aforesaid grants a composite rate in respect of merchandise consigned to or from a dock or shipping place or a warehouse or other premises forming part of a harbour or dock undertaking and the composite rate comprises an exceptional rate for the carriage of merchandise and a charge for services rendered or accommodation or facilities afforded beyond the railway terminus the amount allocated in the composite rate as the charge for such services accommodation or facilities shall he such amount as is sufficient to cover the cost to the company of rendering such services and affording the accommodation and facilities.
§ b) Any dispute as to whether the amount allocated in any such composite rate as the charge for any such services. accommodation or facilities as are mentioned in paragraph (a) hereof is sufficient to cover the cost to the company of rendering such services and affording such accommodation and facilities shall be determined by the rates tribunal at the instance of a trader or of any port harbour authority, dock company, or authority owning and working docks, and the onus of proving that the amount allocated as such charge is sufficient to cover the said cost shall be on the railway company.
§ (2) For the purpose of subsection (4) of the said Section 40 the word "trader" shall include a harbour authority, dock company or authority owning and working docks in respect of any dispute as to the disintegration of any exceptional rate in which such authority or dock company is interested."
§ The noble Lord said: I will state the point of this proposal as briefly as possible at this late hour. It is a new subsection under Section 40 of the Railways Act of 1921 in order to deal with the difficulty that arises between docks and harbours and railways. It is desired by the docks and harbours authorities in order that there should be an allocation of the lines of disintegration of traders' rates between the railways portion of the undertaking and the docks portion, which may be either under the railways or under the dock authorities. It is desired by them that they should be treated in a way any ordinary trader would be in having the rate split up in such a manner that it may be known exactly what goes to the railway services and what goes to the dock services. It is, of course, well known that a port like Avonmouth owned by the Corporation of Bristol, has to compete with South Wales ports such as Cardiff, Barry and 331 Penarth, and that in trade from places like Birmingham, London and Liverpool have to compete with railway ports like Hull, Immingham and Grimsby. It is considered that unfair allocation between these services is detrimental to the private docks as compared with railway docks. They consider that railway services and dock services ought to be divided up in the same way as a private trader is entitled to have the disintegrating of an exceptional rate, and to have it split up into conveyance, station terminals and other services. The provision has not been made in the past, but it is desired that in the future it should be decided by the Railway Rates Tribunal. Some noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have not spoken too well of the Railway Rates Tribunal, but I would point out that it is a semi-judicial tribunal. I beg to move.
The proposed new clause is designed to ensure, as far as I understand it, that the railway companies shall charge for services rendered, accommodation provided or facilities afforded at their docks amounts which are sufficient to cover the cost of rendering such services, providing such accommodation or affording such facilities, as the case may be. It would, however, cover a much wider sphere of activities, including the services of collection and delivery and services at private sidings. The reference in the Amendment to exceptional rates for the carriage of merchandise by rail is merely incidental; the purpose of the clause is to regulate dock charges. The subject matter of the Amendment is outside the ambit and purposes of the Bill, and is indeed rather in conflict with the purpose of the Bill, Part II of which is designed to relieve the railways of certain hampering and unnecessary restrictions, whereas this Amendment, if passed, would impose entirely new and peculiar obligations upon the railways which might well prove to be of a most burdensome and hampering nature.
It is understood that the proposed new clause is being moved on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Asssociation, which represents the larger nonrailway-owned docks and harbours. The 332 association apparently desire to prevent the railway companies from rendering any service to traders at their docks at a rate of charge below the actual cost to the companies of the service, in order that the railway companies may be precluded from operating their docks at a loss which they might make good from railway earnings and thus place the independently-owned docks at a disadvantage in competing with the railway-owned docks. To meet the reasonable requirements of the independent dock owners in this respect, Parliament, in the Railways Act of 1921, empowered the Railway Rates Tribunal, when fixing or modifying railway charges, to have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of, inter alia, any dock or harbour undertaking carried on by the railway company and if the Tribunal were satisfied that the net revenue of such undertaking was, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, to make such deductions from the railway charges as they might think proper. The charges which may be made by a railway company in respect of accommodation provided or services rendered at its docks and harbours are governed by Private Acts or Orders relating to the particular dock or harbour and the Railways Act, 1921, provides that nothing in that Act shall affect the right of a railway company to make 'any charges which it is authorised by any Act of Parliament to make in respect of any accommodation or services provided or rendered by the company at or in connection with docks or shipping places.
As recently as 1930, when the London, Midland and Scottish, London and North Eastern and Southern Railway Companies promoted Bills for regulating their dock charges, and 1931, when the Great Western Company promoted a Bill for a similar purpose, the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association were afforded an opportunity of making proposals to Parliament on the lines now embodied in the proposed new clause, but they did not do so. The matter is not appropriate to the present occasion when the House is concerned with the consideration of a Bill which deals with the problems of road and rail and matters connected therewith. It may be pointed out that this proposal that the railway companies should be required by Statute to charge in respect of each and every particular 333 service rendered or accommodation or facilities provided at their docks an amount sufficient to cover the cost to them of such service, accommodation, or facility, constitutes quite a new form of interference in and control over the charges of transport undertakings. It may be doubted if any similar condition has been imposed by Parliament in respect of any trading concern. Consider, able difficulty would often be experienced in ascertaining the true cost of particular services or facilities; indeed, in many cases, the ascertainment of the cost may well be impossible. Most of these activities are closely inter-related and inter-dependent. The cost of their performance may vat), widely in different cases and at different times, but it is of general convenience that recognised scales of charges should be applied generally.
Further, it may be that the maximum charge which the railway company is empowered to make in respect of a particular service or facility is less than the cost to it of rendering the service or providing the facility—in which case the Amendment would be in conflict with the private legislation regulating the charge. And, moreover, it would be inequitable that the independent dock owners should be given a right to require a. railway company to justify before a Tribunal their charges for specific services or facilities without a corresponding right on the part of the railway companies in relation to their competitors, the independent dock owners. In the view of the Government the provisions of the proposed new clause are not suitable and are unworkable. For these reasons I regret to say that I cannot accept the Amendment.
I am obliged to the noble Marquess for the full answer that he has given. I think the Association will seek a proper occasion for bringing forward their grievance if they desire to pursue it. I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendments as to level crossings.
§ 36.—(1) The Minister, if upon an application made to him by the railway company concerned he is satisfied that it is expedient so to do, may direct that the gates on any level crossing over a public road shall, 334 instead of being kept closed across the road, be kept closed across the railway, either constantly, or on such clays, or during such portions of any day, as he thinks fit, and, if he so directs, the gates shall, notwithstanding anything in any Act (whether a public general Act or not) to the contrary, he kept closed in accordance with his direction, except when engines or vehicles passing along the railway have occasion to cross the road and, if the person entrusted with the care of the gates fails to comply with the direction of the Minister, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty of forty shillings for each offence.
§ EARL HOWEmoved, in subsection (1), after "concerned", to insert "or by the highway authority or an organisation representing the users of road vehicles." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the position of level crossing gates. The clause as it is drafted in the Bill authorises the Minister to give direction about the position of the level Crossing gate on the application of the railway company. That is, of course, as to whether the gate shall be closed across the railway or across the roadway. The Amendment asks that an application to the Minister may be made also by road interests or an organisation affecting road users. Under the existing law (the Act of 1845) the only ground on which the Minister can direct the gates to be kept closed across the railway is that of public safety. This clause enables him to give the direction if he is satisfied that it is expedient. This Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place and the Minister resisted it on the ground that the responsibility for safety rests with the railway company, and that it would not be right to allow the powers to be exercised on the application of anybody but the railways who are the people responsible for safety in the matter. The road users think that it is not a sufficient reason to prevent an application being made by persons interested other than the railway companies, but under the clause as it stands the Minister will be responsible for safety if he gives directions for keeping the gates closed against the railways. He and his advisers are considered quite capable of exercising judgment on the matter whether the application is made by the railway company or by the highway authority or by the road users. The importance of road traffic has increased so enormously that responsible bodies representing those 335 using the roads ought to have the opportunity of making application. I beg to move.
The position is that as the law stands at present alterations in the normal position of level crossing gates can only be authorised if the Minister is satisfied that the alteration would be more conducive to public safety. Your Lordships will notice the words "more conducive to public safety," which show that it is very restrictive. Cases, however, sometimes arise where it would be more convenient for the gates to be closed across the railway but where it is difficult to say that it would be more conducive to public safety. Further than that, the existing provision that gates should be constantly closed is inappropriate in cases where it would be most satisfactory if the gates were closed part of the time across the railway and part of the time across the road. Really this is purely a railway operation and I cannot honestly see that there is any justification for inserting in this particular clause a provision to the effect that both the highway authority and the organisations representing road users should be in a position to move in the matter. I would like to remind the noble Earl that under the present law —and it is not proposed to alter the present law in this particular respect—it is ordinarily open to anybody concerned, including highway authorities and road users, to apply to the Minister to order the position of level crossing gates to be altered in cases where such alteration would be conducive to public safety. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
§ Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
§ Interpretation of Part 11.
§ "—(1) The Minister may hold inquiries for the purposes of this Act or of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (including appeals to him under either of those Acts) as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and Section twenty of that Act shall apply accordingly.
§ (2) Where any such inquiry is held, the Minister may make such order as to the payment of the costs incurred by him in connection with the inquiry (including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as he may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, and the Minister may certify the amount of the costs so incurred, and any amount so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid by any person shall he recoverable from him either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Minister summarily as a civil debt.
§ (3) Section one hundred and fourteen of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall cease to have effect."
§ The noble Marquess said: This new clause relates to inquiries which may be held by the Minister. The clause is drafted so as to relate not only to inquiries under the present Bill but also to inquiries under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Section 114 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is repealed by the clause. That section provided that where an inquiry was held by the Minister under that Act he might make such order as to the payment of costs incurred by him in connection with the inquiry as he thought just. The present clause follows the more usual precedent in Local Government Acts, etc., of enabling the Minister to include in the costs incurred by him an allowance not exceeding five guineas a day for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry. I beg to move.
§ EARL HOWEmoved to amend the proposed new clause by omitting from subsection (2) the words "(including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as he may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the enquiry)." The noble Earl said: The point I desire to raise is a very minor one but we do not like the sum of five guineas a day being stereotyped as no doubt it would be under the clause. The charge for this used to be at one time £3. It has gradually advanced until now it has got to five guineas and we are rather afraid it may go higher still in future measures. I beg to move my Amendment rather as a protest.
The effect of the Amendment would be as the noble Earl has stated. I hardly think that he need anticipate the danger which he has mentioned and I think the Committee will agree that these are reasonable costs.
Back to SUPERANNUATION (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS AND QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY) BILL.

References: § 25
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

§ 26

§ 27

§ 33

§ 36